Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL

Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) suspended; Lords Amendments to the Bill to be considered forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS &c. (SUSPENSION)

Ordered,
That

(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which has originated in this House in the present Session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session;
(2) the Agent for any such Bill intending to suspend further proceeding thereon shall give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than noon on the last day of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceeding thereon provided that all fees due upon any such Bill up to that date be paid;
(3) a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stage at which they have been suspended shall be prepared by the Clerks in the Private Bill Office and printed;
(4) every such Bill shall be presented to the House not later than the third day on which the House sits after the next meeting of Parliament;
(5) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been suspended at the last stage of its proceedings in the present Session;
(6) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the causes of Her Majesty's calling the Parliament have been declared thereunto;

(7) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and if the Bill has been read a second time before its suspension shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(8) any Bill which, under the provisions of paragraph (7) of this Order, is deemed to have been read the first time or to have been read the first and second time shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
(9) all Petitions against any Bill presented in the present Session which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session;
(10) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies, Standing Order 127 (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills), relating to Private Business, shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;
(11) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords, upon which the proceedings have been suspended in that House, shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill for the present Session shall be held to have been published, given and made respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the next Session;
(12) no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceeding on a Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
(13) any report of the Examiner in respect of a Petition for additional Privisions in a Bill presented in the present Session, shall stand referred to the Standing Orders Committee in the next Session;
(14)

(a) all Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Public Bill presented during the present Session shall be held to have been complied with in respect of any Bill presented in the next Session, which is the same in every respect as the Bill which was presented in the present Session; and where the Examiner has already reported that the Standing Orders have been complied with in respect of any such Bill, he shall report only whether any further Standing Orders are applicable;
(b) any Petition against the Bill presented in pursuance of any Order of the House of the present Session and not withdrawn shall stand referred to any Select Committee to whom the Bill may be committed in the next Session.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Smoke Control Areas

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the progress made in implementing smoke control orders in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on his policy for extension of clean air zones.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I am concerned that only 21 local authorities out of the 80 or so in areas where pollution is heaviest have so far made smoke control area orders. In a recent letter which my right hon. Friend sent to those authorities which have made little or no progress he warned them that unless they submit and carry out planned programmes it may be necessary to consider legislation making smoke control a statutory duty.

Mr. Taylor: Would the Under-Secretary of State agree that one of the reasons for lack of progress is that in some cases because of smoke control orders unbelievable confusion has arisen which is a cause of individual hardship? Would he be prepared at this stage to do a survey in one such area where there is a smoke control order to see how this problem can be avoided elsewhere?

Dr. Mahon: I quite appreciate the hon. Member's concern because he and I have had a considerable correspondence involving his own area, and I can quite understand the difficulties, some of which, however, are not entirely due to the instructions. I am perfectly willing to look into this matter to see if, in consequence of what the hon. Member has said, we can do something like this.

Royal Commission on Local Government

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the terms of reference and member-

ship of the proposed Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland.

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the terms of reference of the Royal Commission to consider the reorganisation of local government in Scotland; and when it is expected it will report.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The terms of reference of the Royal Commission are now being framed and I will shortly be consulting the local authority associations about them. The intention is that the Commission should be a small authoritative body. It will settle its own timetable, but I hope that it will not take more than two years to report.

Mr. Taylor: In the unlikely event of the present Government being returned to power, would the Secretary of State give very wide publicity to the Commission so that residents, tenants, and owner-occupiers' association will know how to go about submitting evidence?

Mr. Ross: I think the hon. Gentleman can take it that when we are returned we shall give every publicity to the work of the Commission and to how anyone who wishes to submit memoranda will be able to do so.

Mr. G. Campbell: What are the Government's intentions, then, about all the work which has been done following the White Paper of over two years ago on the modernisation of local government? Is all this to be wasted? It is now being held up?

Mr. Ross: I think we have answered this question a few times. I am sorry about the hon. Gentleman's memory slipping. None of that work will be wasted. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the working party's last report was submitted to the steering committee as a summary of conclusions, and it indicated a very wide divergence of opinion about the structure. All the good fruits of it will be available to the Royal Commission.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in considering the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, bear in mind the Motion, tabled by my hon. Friends and three of his, and calling for an extension of the terms of reference?

Mr. Ross: Since we do not know the terms of reference it is difficult to see what extension will be required, is it not? But I will take into account all that is relevant.

Doctors (General Practice)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in order to arrest the falling-off in the numbers of doctors engaged in general practice.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart): I believe that the measures in hand to provide better conditions for general practice, including the proposals for a new contract which are at present under discussion, will encourage doctors to enter and to remain in the family doctor service.

Mr. Stodart: Will the hon. Lady confirm that throughout every year up to 1963 there was a steady increase in the number of medical practitioners at work in Scotland; that in the last half of 1964 the decline began, and there were nine who retired or emigrated; and that in the last half of 1965 that was quadrupled to 38? Does she regard that as satisfactory?

Mrs. Hart: Certainly I should not have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have regarded it as satisfactory, because he will remember that it is the decisions of a previous Government in 1957 about the training of doctors which are determining the numbers coming into the profession at the moment. That is why we are examining the question with the Royal Commission on Medical Education as a matter of extreme urgency.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Lady must be a little more honest with the House. It is not a question of the number of people coming in but the number of people leaving. That has quadrupled.

Mrs. Hart: The right hon. Gentleman is forgetting the fact that, when people grow old, they retire. What matters is the number of young entrants coming in. We are not deeply concerned about emigration. We are satisfied that many medical students wish to work for a few months in America, for example, and then come back. The basic question is that of training enough young doctors to replace those who retire.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does not the fall in the number of doctors mean that the number of patients that a doctor has to look after is higher than at any time since 1950?

Mrs. Hart: Only fractionally. If the hon. Gentleman wants the numbers, there are over 2,600 doctors providing medical services in Scotland at the moment, compared with, to go back three or four years, about 30, 40 or 50 more. That is accounted for by the fact that we have not so many young people coming in at the moment.

Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he gave to the deputation from Edinburgh Corporation and other interested bodies on the subject of the exclusion of Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello from the new development area.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade and I explained the Government's view that, having regard to the persistently low level of unemployment and to the rates of employment and population growth in the area, the Government did not feel justified in including Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello in the initial list of development areas. We undertook however to take full account of the points made by the deputation.

Mr. Stodart: Will the right hon. Gentleman take particular note of the fact that, as it is his intention to allow every single square inch of Scotland to receive a 40 per cent. investment grant up to the boundaries of Edinburgh City, that is certain to mean that new industries will not site themselves on the Leith dock-side? Is not that a paramount absurdity, after all the money that has been expended and all the work that has been done there?

Mr. Ross: I do not think so. We have to take account of all the facts. As I said to the deputation, I would be prepared to be persuaded if there were urgent reasons in relation to any relevant portion that could be extracted. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind. He voted against these incentives, not thinking them worth while. He voted in response to


speeches by his leader saying that we were spreading the jam too far. Now he asks us to spread it a little further.

Earl of Dalkeith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if we have to have his new system, which we think is much inferior to our own method of boosting industrial expansion in Scotland, at least it should have some semblance of fairness and not exclude one little pocket in the whole area from John O'Groats to near York by this penally exclusive treatment that he is giving it, and will he at least consider—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is getting too long.

Earl of Dalkeith: Will he consider including applications from specific industries which may be beneficial to the development of Edinburgh and, in particular, Leith?

Mr. Ross: I would advise the noble Lord to look at the planning review that was passed by Edinburgh City just the other week. It resolved that it did not want the urbanisation of the city, and envisaged the move of industry outwith Edinburgh. He and his hon. Friends had better make up their minds to tell the truth to the people of Scotland. They want other places left out. Does he want Berwick, East Lothian, Ayr and Perth left out, because we are spreading the jam too thick?

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he is quite certain that Leith will not be included in his schemes, or can we look for some election bribe between now and polling day?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should realise that what new areas will be in will be covered by a Bill. When we get that Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman is still here, he can use his powers of oratory to try to persuade me what should be in, and I hope that something can be done.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, owing to the continued efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Ediburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), assurances have been received from the Board of Trade that incentives will be available in the Leith Dock area? [HON. MEMBERS:

"No."] Yes, it is published. Read your papers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is getting too long, and I do read my papers. Mr. Ross.

Mr. Ross: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have been in consultation with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who is present today and will be back to take part in the discussions about this.

Tay Road Bridge (Toll)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will invite the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board to reconsider its proposal for a 10s. toll on commercial vehicles using the Tay Road Bridge.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No, Sir. It would be improper for my right hon. Friend to consider this proposal until the procedure prescribed in the Tay Road Bridge Order, 1962, has been carried out.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the pledges given by the party opposite about this matter at the last election, could the hon. Gentleman at least undertake that in the unlikely event of the Labour Government having to take this decision, they will set their minds against any suggestion of a 10s. toll, which will drive heavy vehicles off the Tay Road Bridge altogether?

Dr. Mabon: I much regret that the hon. Gentleman was not here to debate this matter on Friday, when I made it clear that, under Section 83, certain proper procedures had to be carried out, and the Secretary of State could not pass comment on these matters, despite the blandishments of the hon. Gentleman, without breaching the Statute.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that if tolls are charged at all on the bridge, the County of Fife will be the only county in Britain where one has to pay to get in and pay to get out?

Mr. G. Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman, during the short period that he has this under consideration, none the less bear in mind the advantages of a low flat-rate toll such as has been operating on the Forth Bridge?

Dr. Mabon: The Secretary of State will probably show more sensibility about this than his predecessor.

Live Animals (Export for Slaughter)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to prohibit the export from Scotland of live animals for slaughter abroad.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): As a welfare measure, the export of live animals for slaughter is limited to those countries which have given the Balfour Assurances. My right hon. Friend would not feel justified in present circumstances in placing further restrictions on the trade at the present time.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, when the animals leave these shores, we have no physical control over them, and there is cruelty? If in the next Parliament I bring in a Bill from those benches, will he and his colleagues support it?

Mr. Willis: The assurances are given from one Government to another, and we would not expect them to be very lightly disregarded. If the hon. Gentleman has specific cases in mind and he sends them along, we will be quite pleased to look at them.

Mr. Rankin: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, while we may have regulations and assurances, it is the case that both of these are evaded when cattle are being exported? Would not one aid in averting the suffering be achieved by slaughtering the animals before they are exported? Why cannot that be done?

Mr. Willis: In general, there is an increasing demand for live animals rather than slaughtered animals. With regard to the first part of the Question, if my hon. Friend has any specific case, we should be quite pleased to look at it.

Mr. Stodart: Would not the hon. Gentleman admit that it is far preferable that we should send carcase meat abroad where it is intended for consumption, rather than live animals? Will he do his best to see that our slaughterhouse accommodation is brought up to the

necessary standards, and not be obstructive when people wish to do that?

Mr. Willis: I do not accept that we are obstructive in this matter. Rather the opposite is the case. With regard to the first part of the Question, the fact is that there is an increasing demand for live animals, and the question that we have to ask ourselves is whether or not we are going to lose this trade rather than send the animals that are desired. We feel that, in view of the assurances that are given as a result of the Balfour assurances, there is no need at the present time to make any change.

Development and Transport Requirements

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish Economic Planning Board has yet carried out its study of future development and transport requirements in the north-east of Scotland.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish Economic Planning Board has yet completed its survey of the development and transport requirements of the Borders.

Mr. Ross: The White Paper on the Scottish Economy included comprehensive surveys of the economic resources and prospects of these regions and proposals for their development. The implementation of these proposals and their adaptation to changing circumstances will be a matter for the regional consultative groups which I am setting up.

Mr. Campbell: As at least one important decision on transport in the North-East is apparently awaiting the result of such an inquiry, can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when this further consultative group will have completed its studies?

Mr. Ross: I think the hon. Gentleman realises that the Vice-Chairman of the Scottish Economic Planning Council was in the area yesterday, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have read with interest, and will applaud, the result of that visit, as it is likely that we will have the consultative group set up very shortly, as soon as we are returned to power.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he is apparently satisfied with the part of the plan which refers to the north-east of Scotland, particularly the Aberdeen area? Does he realise that there is no specific proposal, in spite of everything which a Labour Government promised to do?

Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Lady that now, for the first time, we are bringing Aberdeen into the picture, as she said it should be about three years ago, but her Government never did anything about it. We are now proceeding from the point of strategy to tactics, and with the help and support of the people in the area, and the new investment policy, I see a far brighter future for Aberdeen than the hon. Lady does.

Mr. David Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman's first answer mean that the question of the possible closure of the Waverley-Carlisle line will be referred to the new consultative group for the Borders?

Mr. Ross: I think that if the hon. Gentleman waits in patience he will find that there is a Question on the Order Paper about this.

Mr. Noble: As the right hon. Gentleman's only hope for the North-East was to congratulate them on their fertility, does he regard this as strategy or tactics?

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman has based his question on a wrong premise. We have already given attention to Aberdeen by the development of new factories and new industrial areas there, and we have not finished by a long chalk.

Public Investment

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effects the re-programming of investment by departments will have on his estimates for public investment in Scotland in the current year contained in paragraph 372 of the White Paper on the Scottish Economy, Command Paper No. 2864.

Mr. Ross: None, Sir. The estimates in the White Paper took full account of the effects of the policy which was introduced on 27th July last year and is now being continued in a more flexible form.

Mr. Campbell: Does not that mean that either the Chancellor's statement on 8th February was a sham, or the figures in the Scottish White Paper which was published earlier are entirely meaningless?

Mr. Ross: No, Sir. I think it means that the hon. Gentleman is not capable of comprehending what was said.

Tidal Waters (Prevention of Pollution)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has so far been taken under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1965, in relation to tidal waters.

Mr. Ross: Progress is being made towards fixing the appointed day for Section I, which cannot be before 2nd August, 1966, and making regulations under Section 3. We are also considering applications for orders extending Sections I to 3 to the Firth of Clyde and Findhorn Bay.

Earl of Dalkeith: Does this mean that no pollution has taken place so far, or that nobody has noticed it if it has taken place? How many individuals will the right hon. Gentleman have engaged in reporting to him when it does occur?

Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better wait until we get the appointed day, until we get the new applications dealt with. The hon. Gentleman knows that the purification boards are concerned about these matters, and that things do not go unnoticed.

Police

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many recruits joined the police in Scotland in each of the past five years; and what was the total net increase in the police force over the past 12 months.

Mr. Willis: As the first part of the answer contains a table of figures I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The total net increase in 1965 was 305 men and 14 women.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Scotland are becoming increasingly anxious that the Government are not doing nearly enough to support the police forces in


their battle against crime? What steps will he take to try to supplement the police by further recruitment of women to relieve men of the less important duties?

Mr. Willis: I am not aware of the state of affairs referred to in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Mr. Noble: Go to Scotland and find out.

Mr. Willis: I have probably been in Scotland more than the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to have spent a considerable part of his time abroad recently. With regard to the second question, we shall of course continue with the measures which are bringing in the recruits at the present time.

Following is the table:


Year
Recruits on first appointment


Men
Women


1961
657
58


1962
832
70


1963
711
88


1964
669
68


1965
768
78

Mr. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total strength of the police force in Scotland; how this compares with the required establishment; and what are the comparable figures for the North-Eastern Constabulary.

Mr. Willis: At 31st December, 1965, the total strength of the police in Scotland was 9,994 men and 353 women, which was 682 men and 48 women short of authorised establishment. The figures for Scottish North-Eastern counties were 329 men—excluding three officers on secondment or central service—and 6 women, which was one man short of authorised establishment.

Mr. Baker: Have the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend considered using traffic wardens for the direction of traffic, thereby freeing the police for their fine and essential job of prevention of crime and apprehension of criminals?

Mr. Willis: Yes. This is a matter, of course, for the chief constables. We pointed out to chief constables a week or two ago that they could do this and that we hoped that they would.

Snow Ploughs

Mr. Hendry: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many rotary and air-blowing snow ploughs are available for use on roads in Scotland.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Scottish Development Department has 20 rotary blower ploughs for use on trunk roads. Information as to the number held by local authorities is not available.

Mr. Hendry: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that number is inadequate in view of the indiscriminate closure of railway lines by his right hon. Friend the former Minister of Transport, and will he take immediate steps to increase the number?

Dr. Mabon: That may be true in some parts of Scotland, but not in Aberdeen-shire, which is a well-equipped county. During the next three years I hope to increase the number of departmentally-owned vehicles equipped for heavy ploughing, which should help in the North and north-eastern counties.

Upper Deeside and Glen Feshie (Road)

Mr. Hendry: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has reached a decision on the proposed road joining Upper Deeside and Glen Feshie, in view of the statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on 19th March, 1965, that this road should be considered in the context of the Scottish Economic Planning Board's study of the Highlands.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer which my right hon. Friend gave to his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 2nd March.

Mr. Hendry: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a year is far too long a time to consider this road which is vital to the interests of the north of Scotland? The trouble is not lack of money. Will he therefore use the short time available to him to persuade his right hon. Friends in the Treasury to disgorge some money?

Dr. Mabon: I think that we have plenty of time. Following a discussion that we had earlier on this matter—and


I was grateful to both counties that they were willing to agree to a 75 per cent. grant and not demand anything higher—this matter, along with 33 other proposals—and I should not like to go into the priority of them—has been referred to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which, after all, only began late last year. After the Board has made its recommendations, they will go to the Scottish Economic Planning Council, of which my right hon. Friend is Chairman.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Can the hon. Gentleman give us no idea of how long this process is going to take? Secondly, will he bear in mind particularly the advantages to tourism and to the pulp mill in the West?

Dr. Mabon: Very much so, and in view of the last 17 months of dynamism which we have shown the country, we can expect a great deal more progress in the coming years under the Labour Government.

Police and Prisons (Expenditure)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure is planned on police and prisons in Scotland to the year 1970–71.

Mr. Willis: Over £120 million in the period 1965–66 to 1969–70 at 1965 prices. Expenditure in 1970–71 has not yet been estimated.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what prison building is proposed in this estimate, particularly of remand centres, to relieve the present overcrowding in prisons? Secondly, is he aware that the people of Scotland will be astonished at his last remark that he is not aware that the people of Scotland are concerned about crime?

Mr. Willis: I did not say that. With regard to prison building, we have a programme of prison extensions and alterations, and we hope to build a new prison very shortly, all of which will help to relieve the present situation in Scottish prisons.

School-leaving Age (Teachers)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many more teachers will be required in Scotland by 1970–71.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the progress towards getting enough teachers in Scotland to raise the school-leaving age in 1970.

Mrs. Hart: About 4,500 additional teachers will be needed for the raising of the school-leaving age in 1970–71. I esimate that a further 8,400 more than were in employment in 1964 would be needed if we were at the same time to get rid of oversized classes, to end the employment of uncertificated teachers and to fill all vacancies. The number available should have increased substantially by then, and I would refer the hon. Lady to my right hon. Friend's reply of 2nd February to my hon. Friend, the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will the hon. Lady say whether she is satisfied that she will be able to recruit enough teachers to keep to the decision to raise the school-leaving age in 1970? Can she further say whether any new proposals are being made to attract more teachers?

Mrs. Hart: As I believe the noble Lady knows, I have been engaged in what we call open-ended discussions with the teachers' organisations. In the five meetings that we have had these have been largely concerned with exploring their attitudes to new courses of the kind recommended to us by the Scottish Council for the Training of Teachers. It is a very complex problem. It is clear that we can meet almost all the deficiencies in many ways by the stimulus that we are giving to recruitment and the expansion of colleges of education, but if we want to meet the requirements fully there is no double that new sources of supply are needed.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Lady aware of the very serious damage that was done to the confidence of teachers in Scotland by the action of her right hon. Friend in recent weeks? Will she and her right hon. Friend take the most urgent action in order to try to regain some of the confidence of the teachers in the future of the teaching profession in Scotland? Is she aware that if she does not succeed in doing this there is no possibility of meeting educational needs in 1970?

Mrs. Hart: This is one subject that ought not to be treated as a matter of party politics or electioneering. I agree that the teachers were disturbed by the reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, but there are two things which should be fully understood by the teaching profession. One is that my right hon. Friend has awarded it 13 per cent., and the Board is considering what else may be required. The other is that there has never been a Government who have so gone out of their way, during their short period in office, to consult and discuss with the teaching profession the many problems facing Scottish education. This is a new development, and the teachers recognise it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Our productivity rate is declining.

Prisoners (Accommodation)

Mr. Wylie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many male prisoners were sleeping three or more to a room at the end of 1965.

Mr. Willis: 504, besides those in dormitories at Aberdeen and Penninghame Open Prison.

Mr. Wylie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this state of affairs imposes a very heavy strain on the prison service and the prison officers' service? Are not we in danger of reaching a situation in respect of prisons that has been reached in the case of remand homes in Glasgow, where the courts have been told by the Secretary of State for Scotland not to send any more boys there?

Mr. Willis: This is a most regrettable situation, but it should have been tackled many years ago. Hon. Members opposite have some responsibility for this. We are now proceeding with the highest ever prison building programme. Last year we provided 100 additional places and this year we hope to provide an additional 120 places. These are for young offenders, but they will relieve the overcrowding in the prisons themselves.

Mr. Noble: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this very high rate of prison

building is in addition to what was planned, or is it covered by the plan we left him?

Mr. Willis: To be quite honest, the right hon. Gentleman increased the building programme in 1964, which was an election year. The rate has now reached a record level.

Prison Rules (Discipline)

Mr. Wylie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent disciplinary procedure is precluded by the prison rules when a report has been made to the procurator fiscal; and if he will have the rules amended.

Mr. Willis: Under the prison rules the governor is required to investigate any reported offence against discipline by a prisoner not later than the following day, and this time limit has given rise to some difficulties in cases which have been reported to the procurator fiscal. I am advised, however, that the requirement of the rules would be met by a preliminary investigation which need not interfere with police action, and governors are being instructed to adopt this procedure in appropriate cases in future.

Mr. Wylie: I am obliged for that reply. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the prison service has been concerned about what appears to be a hiatus between inquiries by the prison authorities and proceedings by the procurator fiscal?

Mr. Willis: The case that the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind arose as a result of a request from the prison officers in Peterhead. We are aware of the difficulties, and they are being put right.

Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that there will be specialist staff as recommended in the Wright Report avail able at the Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, when the extension opens later this year; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Hart: I am satisfied that specialist staff as recommended in the Wright Report will be available.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does not the hon. Lady agree that in view of the fact that an answer was given by her right hon. Friend which showed that there was inadequate staff to meet the Wright requirements of the Edinburgh Hospital, it is over-optimistic on her part to think that there will be adequate staff available for the Victoria Hospital when it opens?

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Member will remember the discussions that he had with me in January on this question. We are not concerned here with any difficulty of recruiting staff. Since January there have been a number of meetings between my officials and the regional hospital board, and on the basis of a little extra money given to them we are certain that the staffing difficulties can be met.

Hospitals (Staff Shortages)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if shortage of staff is preventing use being made of any new hospitals or wards of existing hospitals.

Mrs. Hart: Staff shortage is not preventing use being made of new hospitals. A few wards in existing hospitals are sometimes out of use, but staff shortages are seldom the only cause of this.

Sir J. Gilmour: Is it not a fact that the hospital extension recently opened in Wick has been delayed because of the shortage of staff and when the new Victoria Hospital extension opens later this year it will be necessary to close the old hospital in order to transfer its staff so as to open the other one?

Mrs. Hart: There are many other factors concerning the closure of the orthopaedic hospital in Kirkcaldy. In general we do not expect any difficulty in recruiting staff for the new hospital in Kirkcaldy. This is because, in general terms, all over Scotland recruitment is going very well, and the number of nurses is increasing. We have no evidence to support the kind of claims made by the hon. Gentleman.

Council Houses (Rents)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that Scotland's council house system is out of date; and if he will take steps to ensure that wealthy people living in

subsidised council houses pay an appropriate rent.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the present council house system in relation to finance; and what steps he intends to take to alleviate the burden of interest charges on local authorities in making housing provision.

Mr. Ross: In our White Paper on The Scottish Housing Programme, 1965–70, we said that if the local authorities are to be able to carry out the expanded house-building programmes which are essential it is necessary to ease the rate burden by improving the Exchequer subsidies and by pursuing sensible rent policies; that, because of the uncertainty caused by high and sometimes sharply fluctuating rates of interest, the Government propose that the main Exchequer subsidy should be related to a stable interest rate of 4 per cent.; and that the more generous subsidies create an opportunity for all authorities to review their rent policies, so as to ensure that reasonable levels of rents and adequate rent rebate schemes avoid hardship and unfairness to local authority tenants and ratepayers alike.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory Answer? It does not begin to answer the Question that I put. I want to know what he is going to do to ensure that people pay what they can afford to pay for their houses, in the same way as they pay what they can afford to pay in respect of taxes.

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Member would look forward with a little less anger and look back to see what he did when he was an Under-Secretary, he would not speak so intemperately. He will be aware that the statutory position is that the fixing of rents is a matter for local authorities. One of the reasons why right hon. Gentlemen opposite failed in house building in Scotland was that they tried to nark, badger and force local authorities, as a result of which they rapidly got nowhere. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that there are so many bees buzzing in his bonnet that they warp his judgment. The Member of Parliament who presumes to call local authority tenants second-rate citizens declares himself to be a third-rate M.P.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That answer was far too long.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is it not the case that the owner-occupier paying Income Tax at the standard rate gets a much larger subsidy than does the council tenant? Does my right hon. Friend recollect that not only the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) has referred to council tenants in these terms? The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) described them as shiftless council tenants some years ago.

Mr. Ross: We should get the heat out of this matter. What Scotland requires is a much augmented programme of local authority building and building for private ownership—owner-occupation. The Government, with their new subsidy rates for local authorities and their help to owner-occupiers, will achieve precisely that.

Lady Tweedsmuir: First of all, might I say in passing to the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Might I ask him whether he is aware that his hon. Friend has a very inaccurate memory? Secondly, in view of the fact that the General Election has cut the Bill to which he refers, has he any other proposal to make to local authorities for rent rebate schemes which are fair and just?

Mr. Ross: The noble Lady should appreciate that no one has a better memory for what she said in the Scottish Grand Committee than I have and I can remember the day she said it. On the rent rebate scheme, she knows that local authorities have this power at the moment and they are increasingly using it.

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to encourage local authorities in Scotland to operate rent differential schemes.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In the White Paper published last autumn, in a circular sent to Scottish local authorities on 25th February, and in many meetings which my right hon. Friend and I have had with individual authorities, on housing, we have urged the importance of adequate rent rebate schemes, which

can enable reasonable rents to be charged without causing hardship to tenants with low incomes.

Mr. Galbraith: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing in England, who said that the state of council house finances was medieval and that something should be done about it? Would he not agree that it is necessary that these rent rebate schemes should be very much the same throughout the country, otherwise the result is the immobility of labour which has done so much harm to Scotland?

Dr. Mabon: I always agree with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I confirm what the hon. Member said about the idea of having rent rebate schemes which are reasonable. At the moment, on the November, 1965, return, 88 authorities now operate rent rebate schemes, covering 78 per cent. of all council houses in Scotland. That is a record.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that I represent the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) in this House, that he lives in South Ayrshire and that he does not represent anybody here?

Mr. G. Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree with what the Minister of Housing said in a national newspaper—that wealthy persons should be charged a high rent?

Dr. Mabon: This is entirely a matter for the local authorities to decide. There are some local authorities which operate differential rent schemes. This is entirely a matter of local democracy and the hon. Gentleman should trust the local authorities.

Teachers' Salaries

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the question of teachers' salaries in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave on 8th March to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I recollect that reply? Is he also aware that there is a certain unrest among teachers in Scotland following the furious conflict between the replies given by the right hon. Gentleman on this question and the original terms of reference on which he referred this matter to the Prices and Incomes Board? He has apparently prejudged the findings of the Board. Indeed, his hon. Friend made it plain earlier today that the Board might recommend more than the right hon. Gentleman put forward in the first place. What is the precise position on the Prices and Incomes Board?

Mr. Ross: The Question asked when I expected to receive the Report. If the hon. Gentleman would look through the Answers in the House to the very questions which he has asked, he will find them all there. The trouble is that I cannot endow hon. Gentlemen opposite with reasonable intelligence properly to interpret ordinary English.

Juvenile Offenders

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's policy towards the Kilbrandon Report's recommendations regarding juvenile offenders; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave on 9th February to my hon. Friend, the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Garrow.).

Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a month has now passed, during which I hope that he has reached a decision on this matter? Is he aware that there is great uncertainty in Scotland among those who have responsibility for juvenile offenders—particularly among probation officers? Will he try to put this uncertainty at rest by making some clear statement of the Government's intentions one way or another?

Mr. Ross: I do not know where the hon. Member gets his information. We discussed this with the probation officers a week or so ago, so they know what the policy is and what we are doing about it.

South Ayrshire Hospital

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now

alter his revised Hospital Plan for Scotland, to bring forward the building of the South Ayrshire Hospital so that it may be started before 1970.

Mr. Ross: No, Sir. I am sorry that I am unable, at present, to find a place in the hospital building programme before 1970 for this particular project which was deferred by the previous administration in 1964.

Mr. Younger: Could the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he was specifically asked by the Western Regional Hospital Board to include these projects in this revised Hospital Plan? Does he not agree that it is incredible, after all that he and his right hon. Friends have said about the original postponement, that they have not had the courage to put it back now?

Mr. Ross: On the first point, the answer is, "Yes". The answer we gave to the board was that we were tied by the amount of capital investment available for hospitals in Scotland. That is the reason why it was dropped in the first place and why I cannot perform miracles and put this one in. We suggested to the regional hospital board that, if it was prepared to drop out something else and give priority to this, it could do it, but it was not prepared to do that.

Dental Profession

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he will take to assist the dental profession in Scotland, in view of the loss of investment allowances for dental equipment and its ineligibility for the new investment grants.

Mrs. Hart: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to a Question by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) on 8th February. It is not a matter that calls for action on the part of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Younger: Does not the hon. Lady agree, however, that these dentists—particularly young dentists—will be 10 per cent. worse off as a result of the new arrangements? Does she not agree that it is a very bad thing that young people starting out in their profession should have to face this additional hazard?

Mrs. Hart: This is exactly the question with which the Chief Secretary was dealing. It is only remuneration before tax which is a matter for the health Ministers, so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must await his luck to see whether he is here after the election to put that question to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Noble: Will the hon. Lady represent to her right hon. Friends that this is the only extractive industry which is excluded under the new investment allowances?

Highland Development Projects (Assistance)

Mr. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what particular projects have so far received financial assistance from the Highland Development Board or have been promised such assistance for development of all kinds.

Mr. Ross: It would not be right for me to give information about individual projects, but I can say that the Board has made offers of financial assistance totalling £64,000 for 14 projects within its area. Loans totalling £11,500 have so far been made in respect of two projects.

Mr. Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of the total expenditure by the Board in its first year of operation? Is he aware that the Highland Development Board is extremely displeased with the Government's new incentive scheme for development of industry?

Mr. Ross: I think that it would be unwise for me to try to estimate the expenditure. It will depend on the number of projects which come forward and the number which the Board approves. It has to date received 106 applications. I think that most people are satisfied with the amount which it has been able to do in the four months of its existence. On statements which have been made about the feelings about the new incentive policy, I wish that people would quote this accurately and not attribute remarks to someone who did not make them. It was not the Chairman of the Board who made this statement: it was issued from the Board and the Board said that it would need more time to examine. The House should remember that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are still many Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Ross: If the Board is not satisfied with the present scheme, it can come back to me with a new one.

Detention Centres

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for providing more detention centres in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: A new detention centre is under construction at Glenochil in Clackmannanshire. The first part, which will provide 120 places, will be opened in the autumn of this year. The remainder, giving a further 60 places, should be available early next year.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Member aware that at present young offenders who could be sent to detention centres are being sent to prison? Could he say whether the Glenochil detention centre will accommodate the present surplus who are having to go to prison and who would be much better accommodated in detention centres?

Mr. Willis: Young offenders do not go to prison. They go to young offenders' institutions. This centre should accommodate any additional offenders there might be.

Hospital Staff (Recruitment)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions are being placed on the recruitment of hospital staff.

Mrs. Hart: I am not aware of any general restrictions on recruitment.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Lady aware that her Department advised the North-East Hospital Board to restrict recruitment shortly before the end of the year? Does she consider this to be in the interests of hospital patients and in the interests of hospital services generally in the north-east of Scotland?

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Member must be in some confusion about this. We have placed no restriction on recruitment and until the present election period, when the campaign stopped, we have been trying our best to recruit more nurses. We


have had a vigorous campaign going on, which has been remarkably successful, and the number of nurses is growing. But if the hon. Member has some information to give me, I shall be pleased to look at it, although I think he is confused.

MacBrayne's Ships (Charges)

Mr. Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his approval of the increased charges for MacBrayne's ships to the Islands was made after consultation with the Highland Development Board; and what effect he estimates these increases will have on the maintenance of population in the areas affected.

Mr. Ross: The Highlands and Islands Development Board was informed of the increases before they were announced. I do not expect that the increases will have any significant effect on the maintenance of population in the areas affected.

Mr. Noble: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the cost of freight in these islands is probably the greatest single factor making it difficult to expand industry, agriculture and forestry there? Would he not consult the Highlands Development Board to get their agreement, not just to give them information, before he makes increases of this sort?

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that the Secretary of State has statutory obligations in this respect which he can share with no one else. It is laid on me by statute. I shall certainly try to do a little better in our 13 years of continuous office than did right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who managed to have 12 increases in 13 years.

Hospitals (Highland Area)

Mr. Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the Hospital Plan takes adequate account of the needs of the Highland area; and what advice he has had from the regional hospital boards concerned.

Mrs. Hart: Yes, Sir; though we are not able to do all we should like. The regional hospital boards were fully consulted during the review of the Hospital Plan and all their proposals were carefully considered.

Mr. Noble: Does not the hon. Lady realise that her right hon. Friend very kindly sent me a letter today giving me the information required in part of the Question? Does she not realise that it made it very clear that the regional hospital board would have liked this to continue but that the money which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends promised to increase has not been available?

Mrs. Hart: The right hon. Gentleman is walking into something here. Let us be quite clear that this hospital will be begun soon after 1971. I remind him that it did not appear in the 1964 review covering the years up to 1969–70 for which he was responsible. He should look back on his own party's long years of non-achievement. The total spent on Scottish hospital building in 1954–64 was just over £33 million. We are proposing to spend £60 million in the next five years.

Inshore Fishing Industry

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that there are passages in the National Plan which envisage a decline in the Scottish inshore fishing industry; and what is Government policy on this matter.

Mr. Ross: The National Plan predicts a continued saving of manpower in the fishing industry; and there is a likelihood of some decline in Scottish while fish production from the very high figures which have in the last two years resulted from abnormally favourable natural conditions. But Government policy is to maintain the catching power of the fleet, including the Scottish inshore fishing fleet, and to improve its efficiency by assisting further modernisation.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these statements causes dismay in the north of Scotland and that the National Plan says that the industry will have great difficulty holding its own when it could be one of the great expansive industries of the North?

Mr. Ross: We must, first, get the measure of modernisation that is required in relation to modern catching methods. We must keep the Scottish fleet up to date. That, in itself, may lead to the employment of fewer men, but to keep the fleet's


catching power up will be our objective at the start. If there is a possibility of expansion we will go on with that, and it may well be that we may have some news affecting the Highlands and Islands before this week is out.

Lobster and Crab Stocks (Orkney and Shetland)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what efforts are being made to obtain further information about the lobster and crab stocks around Orkney and Shetland.

Mr. Willis: My Department makes regular measurements of samples of the commercial catch in both Orkney and Shetland and collects data on the catch in relation to fishing effort. From this information estimates of the composition of the lobster stocks are kept up to date. A new shell fish research vessel will be commissioned later this year and one of her first tasks will be the resumption of direct sampling of the lobster stocks on the fishing grounds in the area and its extension to the crab stocks.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister say whether, in the view of the Scottish Office, these stocks are rising or falling?

Mr. Willis: We have no evidence to show that the stocks are falling. We think that the catch has probably been smaller because boats have transferred to white fishing.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

Mr. Handing: asked the Lord President of the Council what steps are being taken to implement the Catering Wages Act and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act in the part of the Palace of Westminster occupied by the House of Commons.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert W. Bowden): The agreement on conditions of service for permanent staff provides that the hours of work, rates of pay and conditions of service of the staff of the Refreshment Department will be based on the Catering Wages Act, adapted as necessary. The standards of the Offices, Shops and Railway

Premises Act, although not enforceable within the House of Commons, are, on Mr. Speaker's directions, applied so far as possible.

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will place the buildings in the Star Chamber Court at the disposal of back-bench full- time Members.

Mr. Bowden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Second Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), published last Friday.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Report was not received with satisfaction by back-bench Members and that there is an urgent need to make accommodation available within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster for those Members who are full-time Members of the House, looking after the interests of their constituents, who do not spend their time on financial vested interests outside?

Mr. Bowden: If my hon. Friend will re-read the Services Committee's Report he will see that as a result of a decanting of certain other rooms in the premises, by January, 1967, an additional hundred places will be provided for hon. Members.

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will make a statement on the progress which has been made in improving facilities for Members in those parts of the Palace of Westminster occupied by the House of Commons.

Mr. Bowden: The progress so far made is set out in the three Reports of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services).

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is my right hon. Friend aware that supplying a bathroom, W.C. and bedroom for Officers of the House is not a satisfactory explanation and is not the right function for the Select Committee?

Mr. Bowden: On the contrary, I rather think that it is. There are certain necessary provisions for Officers of the House when the House is sitting all night.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES (APPOINTMENT)

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Attorney-General (1) what steps he takes to ensure that his information on the political allegiances of magistrates is up to date; and how often he reviews the situation;
(2) what steps are taken to ensure a political balance on the bench following a large change in party strength in a particular area following a General Election.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): As my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has emphasised, the overriding consideration in the selection and appointment of justices is that they should be personally suitable in point of character, integrity, understanding and ability. Subject to this justices should be drawn from all sections of the community and represent all shades of opinion. Accordingly appointments should not be made in too large a degree from supporters of one political party. It would not be practicable to keep the records of the political allegiance of magistrates constantly up to date. If there was a large change in party strength in a particular area the Lord Chancellor would ask his Advisory Committee to take this into account when filling future vacancies.

Mr. Cooke: I am very grateful to the Attorney-General for shifting his ground and stating that suitability is to be the criterion. Will he resist any pressure which there is from his own party to make these selections on political grounds and will he continue his activities towards the High Court Bench?

The Attorney-General: I have not shifted my ground at all. I have stated the principles clearly time and again, but the hon. Member has not understood them. He must not take resentment from the disclosure that in the county in which he is interested the Conservative Party were grossly over-represented on the bench.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Attorney-General aware that this change away from the political appointment of magistrates is very welcome? Has the machinery for recommendation been altered to give effect to the new policy?

The Attorney-General: I think that the Advisory Committees have been made

aware of the principles under which other Administrations have also sought to act, and I do not think that there are any complaints at the moment that the machinery is not working satisfactorily.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (BOOK)

Sir C. Taylor: asked the Attorney-General whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has now decided to prosecute for obscenity the publishers, printers and distributors of the book brought to his attention by the hon. Member for Eastbourne.

The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions is proceeding with the detailed inquiries which have to be made before he can decide whether criminal proceedings should be taken in respect of the publication of the book.

Sir C. Taylor: As the Director of Public Prosecutions has had this book in his hands for many days, and as the book is still on sale at many bookstalls throughout the country, can the Attorney-General do something about it as a matter of urgency?

The Attorney-General: I happen to know that the Director of Public Prosecutions has been engaged in one or two other activities in the course of the last week. The inquiries have been continued with due expedition, but the House must bear in mind that the test of obscenity under the Act is whether the book, taken as a whole, tends to deprave and corrupt those who are likely, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, to read it. For this purpose, therefore, not only has the book to be read and considered as a whole but inquiries have to be made as to the circumstances in which it has been or is being published or of the publication for gain which it may reasonably be expected that the possessor had in contemplation. The inquiries are being pressed on and the matter is being treated with due gravity.

BUILDING CONTROL

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert W. Bowden): The House will recollect that, following the statement


made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works yesterday about the Building Control Bill, I was asked to make a statement about the Government's proposals and the constitutional propriety of what my right hon. Friend announced.
There is, of course, no question of the provisions of any Bill having the force of law until the Bill has received the Royal Assent. This was made clear yesterday by my right hon. Friend. It is, however, the Government's intention, in the event of their being re-elected, and the Bill being approved by Parliament, to give effect to the controls provided for in the Bill.
The House will be aware that under the provisions which it was proposed to incorporate in the Bill, work carried out in the construction or alteration of a building or civil engineering project costing more than £100,000 would be unlawful unless it were exempt or licensed by the Minister. The Minister has, since 1st November, 1965, been indicating cases in which building would be permitted and the arrangements he has made have been broadly accepted by the construction industry.
The purpose of my right hon. Friend's statement, which was made at the request of the Opposition, was to give further guidance to the industry. In the view of the Government, it would be regrettable that possibly urgent and essential projects might be held up because those proposing to carry them out were uncertain whether they would be granted a licence. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend felt it helpful and prudent to indicate that existing arrangements will continue for the time being.
The Government consider that to do less than my right hon. Friend proposed would create confusion and uncertainty in the industry.

Mr. Heath: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement. Is he aware that this precipitates a grave situation and that his statement is entirely unsatisfactory? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He said in his statement that in the event of the Government being re-elected, and the Bill being reintroduced, this will become retrospective "to 28th July, 1965. The Government are, therefore, taking

powers or claiming to take powers across the dissolution of Parliament right back to July, 1965.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, following the question I asked him yesterday, that he has given no precedent whatever in our constitution for action of this kind? He is, therefore, putting to the House unprecedented and unconstitutional action by a member of the Government. While, yesterday, the Minister of Public Building and Works tried to maintain Government by intimidation, the Leader of the House has today imposed government by decree.

Mr. Bowden: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are many precedents for retrospective legislation. Whether there are precedents for retrospective legislation across the dissolution of Parliament is a different matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do no know. I have no information on that.
What is being made clear—and I hope that it is now clear to the House—is that what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works has been doing is, at the request of the building industry, giving guidance as to what would be his view, when the Bill receives the Royal Assent, as to whether a particular project exceeding £100,000, possibly to build a bingo hall or something of that sort, would be likely to receive his approval and licensing when he has the authority of the House.

Mr. Grimond: Is not the Leader of the House aware that the whole point at issue is not whether there are precedents for announcing that a Bill will take effect on the date of announcement, but the carrying of this procedure from one Parliament to another? Does he not agree that that is what the whole argument is about? If there is no precedent for this, surely he is unable to answer the main question being put to him by the House. What is to happen to projects which are started? Are they, as was said yesterday by the Minister of Public Building and Works, to be liable to be refused licences when they are perhaps half way completed, therefore involving very heavy financial losses, for which there is no statutory authority whatever?

Mr. Bowden: I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal


Party is in favour of this control. He said so yesterday. I appreciate the point that he is making, but he must also accept that the building industry, as a result of the dissolution of Parliament, would be in this position; that prior to the notice of dissolution people would be seeking the guidance of the Ministry about what would happen in the event of them applying for licences.
We think it reasonable that those who now wish to begin projects—that is, after the dissolution, or within the remaining three or five weeks before the new Parliament meets—should have the same right to apply to the Minister and to say, "In the event of your Government being returned, and the Bill getting the Royal Assent, what would be our position?"

Mr. Shinwell: Has it not been customary for many years to issue White Papers preceding legislation? These White Papers are submitted to the House for the purpose of debate by hon. Members and also for the purpose of giving guidance to people who might be concerned when the legislation is introduced and passed. Is he also aware that it has frequently happened—and I am satisfied that precedents of this could be furnished to the House—that White Papers have been issued immediately before dissolution, but that the legislation was not introduced when the new Parliament was elected? Surely, in those circumstances, there was really nothing constitutionally wrong in what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works said yesterday.

Mr. Bowden: The information was designed to give guidance to building contractors to prevent them from being unduly affected as the result of legislation which is likely to be passed by this House. If I were a building contractor I would be glad to know whether or not I would be likely to receive a licence in certain circumstances.

Mr. Heath: Is the Leader of the House aware that that is not what his right hon. Friend said yesterday, but that the Minister used the specific words:
I now propose to operate the control…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 1917.]
This was a claim to exercise powers which the right hon. Gentleman has not

got and has never had. Does the Leader of the House realise that after the consultations which he has carried out during the past 24 hours he has been unable to produce any precedents? Is it not apparent that there is no precedent?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware, and I repeat the point, that his right hon. Friend is claiming the right in any future Bill to have retrospective action to 28th July, 1965, with powers of criminal prosecution against the people for which there is not only no precedent but no constitutional justification of any kind?

Mr. Bowden: That is not the position. The position is purely the one which I have described; that in the interests of the industry, building contractors can be guided, prior to or following dissolution, by the Ministry as to whether or not they should proceed with certain projects, and whether or not, when the Bill gets the Royal Assent, they would receive licences to continue the building. This, in my view, is helpful to the industry.

Mr. Paget: Would my right hon. Friend say what is retrospective about saying to the building industry, "We propose to give priority to house building and if you have started on less important constructions you may find that you cannot finish them"?

Mr. Bowden: This is the real purpose of the Bill, which is to give priority to essential building.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is not the Leader of the House aware that this is what Parliament fought against in the seventeenth century, and that having abolished the divine right of the Crown we do not now intend to establish the divine right of Ministers of the Crown?

Mr. Bowden: The hon. and learned Member must excuse me—I was not here in the seventeenth century. But if he is looking for precedents for retrospective legislation, I could give the House many examples of precedents.

Mr. Weitzman: While I appreciate the criticism that may be made from the point of view of retrospective legislation, would not my right hon. Friend agree that no responsible lawyer would characterise the criticism that there has been a


constitutional breach or government by intimidation as other than complete nonsense? Would he not further agree that what the Government have sought here has been to assist builders in what they propose to do?

Mr. Bowden: My information is that, whatever the House may feel on this, the building industry really regards the position as helpful.

Sir D. Renton: Is the Leader of the House aware that the policy announced yesterday by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works is quite ineffective unless there is Parliamentary sanction behind it, and that nobody can be prosecuted in support of the Minister's policy until a Bill—presumably in the same terms as the Building Control Bill is now—has passed through all its stages at some time in the next Parliament? Is he aware that that Bill contained very stringent sanctions—a fine of unlimited amount or two years' imprisonment, or both?
As his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is present, perhaps we could be told whether anybody will in fact be prosecuted retrospectively, bearing in mind that there is now no sanction whatever to support the Minister's policies?

Mr. Bowden: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's recital of the provisions of the Bill is correct. The effect of law does not apply until the Bill has received the Royal Assent. In that respect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely correct.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House regard what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works said yesterday, and what my right hon. Friend himself has said today, as dictated by the plain common sense of the situation; and that we do not ourselves regard any precedent as necessary when this Government do an act of common sense? If there were an act of common sense on the part of the Opposition, we might very well demand whether there was precedent for that.

Mr. Gower: May I ask the Leader of the House a short question? Whatever the merits of building control—and it is conceded that they may be considerable—

does he not attach some importance to the maintenance of those constitutional principles which have been deemed important by our predecessors in this House?

Mr. Bowden: I attach every importance to the constitutional position. I have made it clear, I think, that the constitutional position in my view, and in the views of my advisers, is not infringed in any way here. I also attach considerable importance to the building of houses, and to essential building.

Mr. Heath: But if the right hon. Gentleman wishes only to give guidance to the building industry for the future, will he now make absolutely plain that as there is no precedent and no constitutional propriety about it, no future Bill will in any circumstances be backdated or have penalties back to 28th July, 1965, and that no Bill of this kind can stretch back over the dissolution of Parliament?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman heed the very powerful leader in The Times today, which says that if the Government have made a mess of legislation in their building control policy it is the authority of Parliament in this country which ultimately matters?

Mr. Bowden: The right hon. Gentleman can have the firm assurance that there will be no retrospective penal action.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Mulley. Statement.

SUPER VC10s (CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT)

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Frederick Mulley): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the cancellation of Super VC10s.
As Members will know, work on 10 of the Super VC10s orginially ordered by B.O.A.C. from Vickers Limited has been in suspense since April, 1963, by agreement between the parties. If B.O.A.C. 's judgment of its future requirements later changed, this would still have allowed the aircraft to be delivered following the 17 which B.O.A.C. has in service or in the course of construction.
The Board of B.O.A.C. has again reviewed its future needs for passenger aircraft and foresees no requirement for more Super VC10 aircraft after the 17 have been delivered. In these circumstances, the Board has negotiated terms with Vickers for the cancellation of the last 10 aircraft. These involve a payment by B.O.A.C. to Vickers of £7½ million in respect of cancellation charges. The amount of compensation is, of course, entirely a matter for negotiation between the two parties to the contract. Vickers has also left B.O.A.C. in no doubt of its wish for an early conclusion of this matter.
Before giving effect to this decision, B.O.A.C. naturally informed me of its intention, and I have had discussions with the Chairman of B.O.A.C. and Vickers. I asked Sir Giles Guthrie to defer action for the time being so that both B.O.A.C. and the Government could assess the full implications of this decision Despite this opportunity for review, B.O.A.C. have informed me that it still has no requirement for any Super VC10s after the 17; B.O.A.C., morever, recognises that in no foreseeable circumstances will the Government approve the purchase by B.O.A.C. of any further passenger aircraft of a comparable size from a foreign source to augment its fleet.
I have again yesterday asked B.O.A.C. whether the recent tragic accident to one of B.O.A.C. 's aircraft in Japan modifies its view, but it has confirmed to me that this loss could not effectively be rectified by the purchase of an additional Super VC10 for delivery at a much later date.
In these circumstances, I have regretfully come to the conclusion that I cannot ask the parties to the contract to defer further the agreement they have reached for the cancellation of these 10 aircraft. I take this occasion, however, to say that this cancellation implies no reflection on the Super VC10 itself, which is giving every satisfaction in service and is second to none in its current attraction to the travelling public.

Mr. R. Carr: This is yet another very gravely damaging blow to the British aviation industry—and one that was very nearly hushed up until after the election. Is the Minister aware that in our opinion he has been extremely weak in this mat-

ter, and that he should have insisted on B.O.A.C. taking the remainder of the Super VC10s—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—even if that involved selling some of the Corporation's existing fleet of American aircraft, as was advocated by his predecessor, the present Home Secretary, before the last election?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also realise that this will leave the British Aircraft Corporation with hopelessly uneconomic production schedules? Will he therefore at least arrange for B.O.A.C. and the Royal Air Force to take quicker delivery of the 22 outstanding planes that have still to be completed?

Mr. Mulley: On that last point, the right hon. Gentleman's view is different from that of the Chairman of Vickers and, on the whole, I prefer the view of the Chairman of Vickers about his own production schedules.
This is the most outrageous statement that I have heard in this House for a long time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Wait for it. This suspension was made by the party opposite. The over-ordering of this aircraft was forced on B.O.A.C. by Conservative Ministers, and this suspension was agreed by them.
Not content with this, in the following year, 1964, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Amery), indulged in a blow-by-blow public controversy about the VC10 before it had come into service, and severely damaged the aircraft and destroyed what chance it had.
For the party opposite to have the impertinence to say that we have damaged the aircraft industry by coming to a decision now and in accepting the commercial judgment of B.O.A.C. so that it can continue to make a profit in future as it has done since the Labour Government took office, is an improper view.

Sir W. Robson Brown: Is the Minister aware that the directors of B. A.C. do not wish to have the aircraft cancelled? They wish to continue with its manufacture and to keep operations at Weybridge going. This decision will cause acute dismay and anxiety to management, staff and workers at the Weybridge factory. Will he reconsider it?

Mr. Mulley: I should make it clear that I have no legal status in the matter


at all. After the discussion we have had about constitutional powers of Ministers, I should make clear that this is a contract between the Corporation and the company. I have no powers directly to intervene. It will be no surprise to anyone in the industry, I think, that this order, which has been suspended for so long and was followed by a large-scale cancellation of these aircraft by the previous Government, is not to be completed. I agree that it will be disappointing, but in the circumstances I see no way out of the situation.

Sir L. Heald: In view of the Minister's statement of 7th March that the American Boeings were under suspicion of structural weakness, is it not criminal lunacy to cancel this magnificent British aircraft at this moment?

Mr. Mulley: I should correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I said that the preliminary investigation had shown a structural failure. I did not indicate that we knew at present of any structural defect in the aircraft which had been flying since 1960. The hard facts are that if the order were to be completed for this aircraft it would not come into service until 1969, and there are still a number awaiting delivery. It may be possible for them to be speeded up in relation to this matter, but the parties to the contract will discuss that between them.

Mr. Rankin: While recognising that this is a matter between the Corporation and the company, it still has come before Parliament on the eve of its dissolution. Have we not an interest in the matter? Could not the final decision be held over until the new Parliament assembles?

Mr. Mulley: I have spent the last month trying to find a way—[Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members opposite should find this amusing. I have been trying to pick up the future of the VC10 from the abysmal position in which we inherited it.
The Parliamentary Secretary has devoted hours and days and many journeys to trying to sell this aircraft. At the moment, the VC10 is on demonstration in Czechoslovakia, where we hope to get an export order. We have done all we

can to further the sales of this aircraft. I hope that people outside will realise that on the benches opposite this has been found to be amusing.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this bench deplore Sir Giles Guthrie's decision, although we do not blame him? But we think Sir Giles Guthrie has seriously underestimated the future passenger requirement of B.O.A.C. bearing in mind that he has provided for a growth rate of only 10 per cent. between now and 1969? If his calculations of fleet requirements were right last week, and B.O.A.C. had the right number then, how can it still have the right number when it has lost one in a tragic accident at Tokyo?
What would be the cost of completing these 10 aircraft at Weybridge? Will the Minister consider placing an order with B.A.C. himself and reselling them to the Corporation when the Corporation finds that it has a requirement, as it certainly will?

Mr. Mulley: I am extremely glad that the hon. Member raised the point about cost, because I should make clear to the House that when the previous Government agreed to the suspension of delivery of these aircraft generally they also agreed to the suspension of the price clause; and the price for taking up these 10 or any part of them would now be substantially higher than the price which B.O.A.C. is paying for the existing order. This is one of the additional difficulties.
I have not been able to get the exact price, because in view of the fact that the cancellation has been agreed there is no case for them to negotiate between themselves for a new price, but I am told that it would be substantially higher than the earlier price. In the circumstances, I do not think that the Government would be justified in buying aircraft which the Board, not merely the chairman but the Board of B.O.A.C., which is charged by this House for day-to-day commercial operations, has decided to cancel.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the VC10 is becoming known as probably the finest passenger aircraft flying today? Can we be assured, in spite of the statement which the Minister has felt


justified in making—[Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter. Can we be assured that B.O.A.C. and other passenger transport companies will have an adequate supply of VC10s in order to maintain the very fine service which I had the pleasure of using only yesterday?

Mr. Mulley: We shall do everything possible to further exports, but I am bound to tell the House that the experience so far is disappointing. If one has to put a finger on the cause, it was the tremendous denigration of this aircraft before it came into service by the previous Minister of Aviation, the right hon. Member for Preston, North, and the public controversy about its merits which he conducted in the public Press between himself and the Chairman of B.O.A.C.

Mr. Doughty: Is the Minister aware that at present there is none of these aircraft flying on B.O.A.C. 's longest route to Australia and New Zealand and none is announced for so doing? Does he realise that this is a serious blow to the British Aircraft Corporation following as it does on the failure to obtain an order from Middle Eastern airlines because of the investment policy of the party opposite?

Mr. Mulley: I agree that it is disappointing for workers in the organisation, but Vickers has been pressing for this cancellation statement to be made. On the question of routes, under the previous Government there was deliberate delay in delivery of more VC10s. I am sure that they will be introduced to more routes as they are delivered under arrangements made by the previous Government.

Mr. R. Carr: Will the Minister say whether he has considered, and, if so, why he has turned down, the proposal which was put forward seriously before the last election by his right hon. Friend that B.O.A.C. should replace some of its existing Boeing 707s fleet with Super VC10s?

Mr. Mulley: If I recall it this was exactly the point of great argument in 1964 between the right hon. Member for Preston, North and the Chairman of B.O.A.C We have, of course, considered all possibilities, but the facts are that the Boeing 707s fly at a depreciated cost and

the cost per seat mile is, therefore, below that of the VC10, which could not in any case be delivered for another three or four years.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement which the Minister has made, would I be debarred from raising this matter in the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has every opportunity of raising it on the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, but it will take its place at the appropriate place on the list I have drawn up according to the chronological sequence in which hon. Members have applied to the raising of subjects.

DEBATES (INTERRUPTIONS)

Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a practice which has crept into our procedure to the detriment of the dignity of the House. Whenever we have an important debate now, after five minutes before the end the Leader of the Opposition gives a signal and then there is about five minutes of organised hooliganism from the other side of the House. It happened last night. Even the Daily Telegraph this morning—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Hynd) is in order in quoting from a newspaper if he is asking a question of Mr. Speaker. I hope that we can leave the events of last night alone and not pursue an inquest into what arose last night.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: There is no reason why not. The Chair is only expressing a pious hope and I hope that hon. Members will note it.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Further to that point of order. Bearing in mind the sympathy which the House naturally has has for the Chair when put in appalling difficulty when there are incidents such as happened last night, may I ask you,


Mr. Speaker, to recognise that if Ministers do not choose to answer questions which have been put to them—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is pursuing the inquest which I thought it would not be in the best interests of the House to pursue.

MEMBERS, OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS (MR. SPEAKERS THANKS)

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a brief statement.
I wish to express to the House my deep indebtedness for the tolerance and kindness shown to the Chair in the performance of its duties and my own gratitude to the Chairman of Ways and Means for his unfailing ability, loyalty and devotion, both to myself and to his high office.
As we near the end of this Parliament, I know that I express the unanimous will of the House in declaring our appreciation of the utter devotion of all who have served us—in reporting our proceedings in the House and its Committees, in attending to the enormous task of preparing and printing overnight the day's Order Papers, both for the House and its Committees; in housekeeping services under the Serjeant at Arms; in providing research and information in the Library; in providing communications between hon. Members; in providing hon. Members with all necessary papers; and, not unimportant, in providing both refreshment and sustenance for the House and its staff.
I would also express our sincere thanks to the Clerk, the rest of the Table and its associated Officers for unfailing courtesy and a constant readiness to help and advise us. We have been richly served and I thought it right to say so.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules A and B agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before we report the Bill to the House, perhaps you can give me some guidance, Sir Samuel.
We hope to debate a number of subjects later in the day and if we take the debate at a later stage of the Bill it may be impossible for certain hon. Members with an interest in more than one subject to take part in more than one debate.
Would I be right in thinking that if we discussed the subjects on the list at this stage of the Bill, hon. Members would be able to take part in more than one debate?

The Chairman: That does not arise on the Question that I do report the Bill without Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION, REDBRIDGE

4.6 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that you have called me to address the House immediately following the remarks which you have just made from the Chair. Perhaps it would not be impertinent of me to say, simply because I happen to have the Floor immediately following what you have said, that it would be the wish of both sides of the House most warmly; to


associate themselves with what you have said about the Officers and the staff of the House.
If I may say so without presumption, I think that the House itself would feel a reciprocal debt to you for the way in which you have presided over our proceedings in the later part of this Session and for the kindness, firmness and wisdom with which you have guided us. I hope that it will not be felt out of place that I should say that, but I could not help feeling that it would have been a little discourteous to embark on the debate without referring to what you had said.
It so happens that you have called me when the House, on the eve of the dissolution of this Parliament and pursuing the statement of the Leader of the House, has been discussing a matter of abiding and fundamental constitutional importance, namely, the exercise of arbitrary power by the Executive. It so happens that the matter which I want to raise has a similar implication.
The subject which I want to raise is the exercise of Ministerial powers under the Education Act, 1944, with especial reference to the reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines and also with especial reference to the Borough of Redbridge, one part of which I represent.
I should like to say straight away that the House will appreciate the Minister's courtesy in being here to answer the debate. Neither of us will expect the other to mince matters or be mealy-mouthed. This is a prime issue of controversy between his party and mine and I raise it on the eve of the dissolution of Parliament and our appeal to the electorate. I ask the Minister now to make a candid declaration about his party's intentions in pursuing, should it have the opportunity to do so, the policy outlined in the Secretary of State's Circular 10/65.
There is no need for me to remind the House that this circular called on local education authorities to submit plans for the reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines and there is no need for me to remind the Minister or the House or local education authorities that the Secretary of State has absolutely no power under the 1944 Act to

force local education authorities to organise secondary education in any way whatsoever.
All that is common knowledge, and I think that the Minister knows that many local education authorities profoundly resent what they see as Ministerial intrusion into their exclusive sphere of responsibility. But whatever his general information may be, I should like to take this opportunity of informing him of one specific point about which he can hardly be expected to know so much. Although I am sure that his intelligence is very good, I doubt whether it has spread from Redbridge to Walthamstow that last night there was a meeting held in Ilford in the Borough of Redbridge, attended by 550 people, and which would have been attended by a couple of hundred more had the caretaker of the school not turned them away for safety reasons, and that this meeting passed a resolution to be submitted to the council.
I should like to read the terms of the resolution to the Minister and also to point out to him that this meeting, which was held before the dissolution of Parliament, attracted a larger attendance than anyone would expect any political meeting in the General Election to attract in the coming three weeks. It shows how very seriously people take this issue which his right hon. Friend has put before the country. The resolution which was passed was to the effect that in the Borough of Redbridge no destructive change be introduced into existing grammar and secondary modern schools; secondly, that no effort be spared to bring secondary modern schools up to the educational standards of the best of them; and, thirdly, that comprehensive education be only introduced into the borough with new purpose-built all-through schools so that parents have an even wider choice than at present and all concerned can judge the merits of comprehensive schooling on their home ground.
It is for the local authority to form its own view on the merits of this resolution and on what it intends to do in response to Circular 10/65, but we in this House have a duty to assist the local authority—and, indeed, other local authorities which may be similarly placed—in deciding what their policy should be. On their behalf, I want now to


ask the Minister frankly to declare his party's intentions as to the future carrying out of this policy if his party should again be responsible for it. I shall do my very best to see that his party is not responsible for it, and the electorate will have to judge between us whether this be so or not. I think and hope that their judgment will be affected by the Minister's answer.
First, I want to ask the Minister to confirm that Circular 10/65 is in no way whatsoever mandatory upon local authorities. Secondly, I want to ask him to say absolutely frankly to what extent he and his right hon. Friend are influenced and have been influenced in giving or withholding approval for major school building schemes by considerations as to whether or not any given scheme fitted into the reorganisation of secondary education along comprehensive lines.
I know that the Minister gave a Written Answer the other day to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) to the effect that approval had just been given for a major project to the tune of £128,000 in the Borough of Redbridge. But, of course, he will be aware, and it has not escaped me, that this was only for one stage out of three stages in one project, and that the completion of this one stage in this one project would not have affected one way or the other the total reorganisation of secondary education in the borough along comprehensive lines. In a famous phrase, it kept all the options open.
Therefore, in approving this scheme the Minister was not giving any reassurance to the borough that he had an open mind, and that he would consider schemes on their merits and approve them, if they were sound, regardless of the fact that they might be incompatible with comprehensive reorganisation. I think that it was a former American President, "Teddy" Roosevelt, who said that he found it advisable in politics to "talk soft and carry a big stick". I think that perhaps this may be the Minister's approach, and there is this suspicion in the minds of local education authorities.
I want to ask the Minister what his attitude is now, and what the attitude of his successors in the future would be, if they were guided by the policy of his party, to making grants for schemes for the development of schools locally which

are totally irreconcilable with comprehensive education—for example, a scheme to improve an existing secondary modern school which could not be reconciled with fitting that school into a putative comprehensive scheme.
I want to ask the Minister, also, for an assurance that his party adheres to the principle of the Education Act, 1944, of independence of local education authorities in their responsibility for secondary education, and that he has no thought in his mind of amending legislation as part of the future policy of his party.
I hope that the Minister's answers will be purely academic, but I think it right for him to be on record so that he and his party may be judged accordingly at the forthcoming election if the answers are unsatisfactory. Alternatively, if the answers are satisfactory from my point of view, he can be held to them. That is to say, I should like him to give an assurance to the Redbridge Borough Council that, if it says that it wants to have nothing of his schemes of comprehensive reorganisation, it will still not be penalised by having grants withheld from it. If, unfortunately, circumstances should arise in which a satisfactory assurance is of any significance, I think it right that the Minister should be on record so that he and his successors in office in his party should be held to it in the future.

4.19 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Edward Redhead): May I, first, Mr. Speaker, allude to the reference by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) to your own expression of thanks to those who have served this Parliament, and share with him the endorsement that he expressed of our appreciation to those who have been most excellent servants of this House. I should like to take this opportunity of no less warmly endorsing his very well-deserved tribute and expression of thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for the manner in which you have presided over our deliberations.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North has not sought today to reopen the whole range of the discussion about the policy of reorganising secondary education on comprehensive lines, which we debated at length last Wednesday, but has, in fact limited himself to the broad question of


the extent of statutory powers to enforce compliance with Circular 10/65.
The hon. Gentleman said, in passing, that this was a matter of major controversy between the parties. It is just as well that I should put on record that there are considerable elements in the hon. Gentleman's own party who are at one with my hon. Friends in recognising the merits of reform along the lines of comprehensive education and in the belief that it should not be debated as a purely party issue. On the contrary, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has seen of recent date that a particular element in the Conservative Party, known by the unedifying initials P.E.S.T., give some measure of approval to comprehensive education and express extreme criticism of the Conservative Party itself.
But in the wider field this matter has not been going on strictly party lines, and certainly not in the local sphere. I hope that it will not be debated purely on party lines. It is not disputed for a moment that the existing powers of the Secretary of State do not enable him to enforce compliance with Circular 10/65. I confirm quite frankly and without any qualification that this is not a mandatory document. In fairness, it should be noted that it has never been claimed that it was and the circular itself suggests this neither explicitly nor implicitly.
It is worth recalling the circumstances in which this circular was issued. It followed a Resolution of the House which went on record as saying that it believed that the time was now ripe for a declaration of national policy in general approval of reorganisation on comprehensive lines. The circular thereupon goes on to say, and this is significant and is the whole tone of the document, that the Secretary of State accordingly requests local education authorities, if they have not already done so, to prepare and submit to him plans for reorganising secondary education in their area on comprehensive lines.
Elsewhere in the circular the same note of request is the constant feature, and no one at any time has suggested that it is mandatory. Nevertheless, it is a national policy by decision of the House, and the Government are, therefore, perfectly entitled, and this is per-

fectly consistent with past development in education, to require that the Secretary of State should bring this to the notice of local education authorities and seek to guide and assist them in conforming with the opinion which has now emerged.
It is abundantly clear from all the evidence that a very large section of the educational world, regardless of political alliances, broadly supports this approach. This was manifest at the last annual conference of the Association of Education Committees, and the National Association of Divisional Executives for Education, at its annual conference, passed by a very large majority a resolution welcoming the Government's steps to introduce comprehensive secondary education.
I thought that the point about powers had been made abundantly clear already. I answered a supplementary Question only on 24th February last, put to me by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) when he asked me:
…is it not clear that as the law stands at present there is no power to compel an authority to send a particular reply to this circular or to comply with it? Whatever our views of the merits of the question, is it not very important that the present legal position of the Ministry and of the local authorities should be made quite plain?
I replied:
I am sure that local authorities would not defy what has been the normal position of observing circulars on Government policy and requests made to them to conform to that policy. Nevertheless, it is true that there is no absolute statutory power to enforce some part of that circular, except in so far as an application is required under Section 13."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February 1966; Vol. 725, c. 607–8.]
Perhaps I should have amplified that reference to Section 13. I should make clear now that that Section deals with the question of a proposal by an education authority which desires to close a school or open a new school and first has to secure the approval of the Secretary of State. In so far as such a proposal may be part of the scheme submitted by a local education authority, the Section obviously gives the Secretary of State the power to frustrate the scheme if it is wholly dependent upon such a closure or new school, but it does not give him the power to enforce or impose


the scheme, and the answer which I gave previously is still the position.
On the other hand, let me make it perfectly clear that local education authorities are free to introduce a scheme of comprehensive secondary education outside the requirements of Section 13 on their own volition, and they do not expressly require the permission of the Secretary of State to do this. This is explicit in the 1944 Act.
The hon. Member asked me about the position at Redbridge. He will appreciate that, although Walthamstow is the next-door neighbour to Redbridge, so far the news has not reached me about the decision at the public meeting last night to which he referred. I have noted the terms of the resolution. It was a public meeting and, obviously, one would await the response not of the public meeting but of the local education authority for Redbridge before commenting on the expressed opinion of that resoution.
Indeed, when the hon. Member asks me for a frank declaration of intention I can only tell him, in respect of Red-bridge or any other local education authority, that each and every proposal received from local education authorities will be most carefully considered on its merits. I repeat what I said the other day—that there is no intention whatsoever of passing schemes willy-nilly, regardless of the educational consequences. As the hon. Member will know, some are eager and anxious to implement the principle and have put up schemes which they have been asked to reconsider. Approval has been withheld because in the opinion of my right hon. Friend they are not satisfactory in as much as some destructive element is present in the proposals. This will continue to be the policy, and this will be the manner in which we shall proceed to consider such proposals.

Mr. Iremonger: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has framed his declaration carefully on the assumption that the local authority is submitting a scheme for comprehensive reorganisation, but let us suppose that a scheme submitted consists of blunt defiance of the circular. Will the hon. Gentleman then say, "Very well, I cannot order you to do this or that, but when you come with your request for money for schemes

you will find yourselves always at the end of the queue"? It is of this that people are afraid.

Mr. Redhead: I have the point, but may I correct the general impression which the hon. Gentleman seeks to create? It is perfectly true that one or two authorities—and I have official knowledge only of two—have indicated to us that they are not prepared to submit any plans at all in compliance with the circular. One of these authorities is clearly opposed to the principle and considers that its existing form of organisation is satisfactory to meet the needs. The other, while not opposing the principle, has certain hard practical difficulties in its way in implementing the proposals in the circular. But to represent that these are in any sense a sign of open rebellion and revolt all over the country is, quite frankly, to exaggerate.
There may be others who contemplate similar answers. But I emphasise most strongly that, while the position is bound to be a little obscure until the bulk of local education authorities have reached conclusions—they have until July to do so—and submitted plans and proposals, all the evidence which I have suggests that, by and large, the vast majority of authorities are willingly seeking to co-operate with this request on the part of the Secretary of State in carrying out what, after all, was the expressed view of the House of Commons.

Mr. Iremonger: I am much obliged to the Minister for being so patient and for giving way again. I hope that he will forgive me if I press him on this point. He is not answering my question. If Redbridge says, "We do not want to reorganise", will he take it out of Redbridge when it asks for loan sanction for major developments which are irreconcilable with a comprehensive scheme?

Mr. Redhead: If the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, I shall answer his questions.
I wanted, first, to remove a basic misapprehension on this subject which appeared to be animating his mind. I repeat that to refer to this situation, as some commentators have done, as a muddle is to go quite beyond the facts. It is wholly misconceived. To find the


sound of rebellion in the air—or a large measure of resentment, as the hon. Gentleman himself put it—is to ignore the fact that, in a great many instances, local authority planning is, in fact, going ahead, though not necessarily, I agree, without problems.
Everyone recognises that there are problems here, but local authorities are proceeding in a spirit of willing co-operation with the national policy. I derive that impression not only from the schemes which have come forward, but from the response to that part of the circular which invited local education authorities to consult the Department in respect of the preparation of plans or any difficulties which they might have in this connection. Discussions have been held with many such authorities.
I say frankly that the present policy was initiated in reliance upon the willing co-operation of authorities and, as I have said, the response so far justifies that expectation. But a final judgment on what the situation will be must, obviously, await the end of July when it will be possible to assess the total response to the circular. Until then, and before the process of discussion and persuasion has been fully exploited, it is quite unhelpful to speculate on the hypothetical need to take additional powers.
Compulsion is certainly not an immediate prospect and may never arise at all. I am sure that I express the view of my right hon. Friend when I say that we hope most earnestly that no measure of compulsion will ever be necessary.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As another hon. Member who attended and participated at the meeting to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) referred, may I press the Minister to answer his question? Would the Secretary of State withhold loan sanction from a scheme put forward for the development of an existing school and, therefore, as I understand it, not coming under Section 13, if that development were inconsistent with the move towards the comprehensive system?
I have particularly in mind a school in my own constituency in the Borough of Redbridge, St. Barnabas Secondary

School, for which a scheme may well come forward. Would the Secretary of State withhold consent or loan sanction from such a scheme if it was inconsistent with the development of comprehensive secondary education?

Mr. Redhead: This situation will be made abundantly clear within a few days, when my right hon. Friend will be issuing his invitation to local authorities to make their plans for the next round of the building programme. But I should say here that it would, obviously, be quite inconsistent with the Government's long-term objective, fulfilling the declared view of this House, if future school building programmes were to include new projects exclusively fitted for a separatist system of secondary education. I want to be quite frank about that.
It would be premature and improper for me to say what would be the likely fate of any particular project which might be referred to the Secretary of State from the Borough of Redbridge, or from any other borough, but I make the point that, clearly, given a national objective and a national policy, it would be quite inconsistent on the part of my right hon. Friend—assuming that he will still be in office and have the decisions to make—to give approval to a project for a new school building which was exclusively designed for a perpetuation of the separatist system of secondary education.
I hope that I have dealt with that point. I wish to make clear, also, that we are extremely hopeful that we can proceed, as so often in education, on the basis of willing co-operation with the local authorities. I do not want to talk in terms of compulsion, sanctions or anything of that kind. Local education authorities have a variety of difficulties which are fully appreciated in this context. The circular itself makes abundantly clear that this is well appreciated. Not only are local authorities given the opportunity of considering various systems, but the circular itself makes clear that local factors must be both a very important conditioning element in the preparation of authorities' plans and a conditioning element in my right hon. Friend's consideration of those plans.
While we hope that there will be no question of compulsion or sanctions in this regard, the hon. Gentleman has asked me what our intention will be if


we are, as we are confident we shall be, in office after the General Election. We shall go on with our policy, as my right hon. Friend expressed it in his recent speech, seeking to fulfil this purpose as rapidly as possible, but as slowly as we must, taking account of all the difficulties and the variations of local circumstances. But it would not be right for me to say at this stage that, in seeking to ensure the implementation of a national policy on the reorganisation of secondary education, my right hon. Friend would not in any circumstances, if he found it necessary, consider seeking further powers to carry out the avowed and expressed intention of this House.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that I have tried to deal frankly with his questions. What use he makes of my answer will, of course, remain to be seen. I assure him that I have no hard feelings about my neighbouring Borough of Redbridge. Indeed, in anticipation of still being in a position to influence these matters, I have accepted an invitation to open a new school in his borough only next month.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT, SLOUGH

4.38 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The problem which I wish to raise is not, despite the title given to it in the list of subjects for debate, unique to Slough and its district. It is a problem common to all areas on the fringes of large conurbations, particularly on the fringes of London, in areas of high employment and high wages. The problem is that local bus transport is breaking down. This is part of the fairly general deterioration in public transport services which has gathered speed during the past 16 months.
We have a special difficulty in Slough, because, as Slough is situated right on the fringe of the London Transport area, the transport boundary runs slap through the middle of the town. Until recently, passengers wishing to travel from one end of the town to the other had to change buses in the middle. Slough is a very long town. The factories are mostly at one end and the largest housing estate is at the other. So workers from the estate had to change buses in the middle

of the town, which was bad enough, but worse still because of the inadequacy of the schedules, and even worse because of the failure of both London Transport at the London end of the boundary and Thames Valley on the other side of the boundary even to fulfil their inadequate schedules.
Fortunately, this difficulty has been remedied, and by agreement between London Transport and Thames Valley a certain limited number of buses run right through from one end to another. If we are duly grateful, as we are, for this slight improvement, we have very little else to be grateful for. Thames Valley, in particular, has been slashing its schedules during the last few months and it can no longer pretend to offer an adequate service.
The schedules are inadequate, and, as I said, the buses do not even run to schedule, and, of course, no warning is given to passengers that the buses will not run, so the passengers are often left shivering in the cold and wet on the pavement. What happens is that an advertised bus gathers its passengers, takes them half way to their destination, evicts them unceremoniously at the roadside, and turns round to go back empty to where it started from, leaving them to take another bus which does not come because it has been cancelled.
The result is that it is extremely difficult for workers to get to work on time, which is bad for production and bad for their temper, and still worse for the boss's temper. It also means that children have to start quite unreasonably early in the morning in order to get to school on time and get back very late at night with homework to do, which is bad for their health. The school children and the workers blame one another for shoving one another off the buses at peak hours.
Furthermore, this very unsatisfactory service is far from cheap. It already costs more than an old-age pensioner can afford to travel from the outlying housing estates to the centre of the town where there is any kind of shopping or amusement, and this aggravates the feeling of loneliness and being uprooted which is only too common on these housing estates, particularly among people who have moved there from


London. Moreover, the network of buses in an area of low density housing such as Slough and similar areas around London is altogether too widespread. There are vast tracts of housing estates uncovered by any kind of public transport, and within these large tracts of housing estates there are no shops, not even a little corner shop, and no places of amusement.
The result of all this is that those who can use their cars to get to work. This creates a serious parking problem, particularly at the Slough Trading Estate. There it has more or less reached crisis proportions. It does not yet create a major traffic problem. There is not yet major traffic congestion in the area. Traffic congestion is the Ministry of Transport's favourite excuse for the deterioration in public transport. The Ministry says that, because the roads are so clogged, the buses cannot get through, and because the buses cannot get through, people use their cars. It is a vicious circle.
We have not yet reached this point in Slough or the other outlying parts. It may be true of central London, but it is not true of these areas. However, if the Minister does not do something very quickly, we shall have this additional complication. We shall be in a vicious circle from which it is, I freely admit, very difficult to break out, except by measures of restriction on the private motorist.
To my mind, the principal reason why the public transport undertakings are unable to provide a satisfactory service is the difficulty of recruiting crews. This has been said time and time again by Thames Valley. It has been said by London Transport. It was said to me by the local manager of London Transport. The reason for the difficulty in recruiting crews is not pay, which, by and large, with overtime earnings, is more or less adequate, but the split shift system. Bus work is unpopular because it means working in the morning and either hanging about all day or reporting back again for work in the evening.
I spoke about this in our debate on 9th February. I will not go through all of that again, except to say that this difficulty arising from the split shift system is something that must be taken into account in finding a solution. We have these interlocking problems of inadequate

schedules, and schedules not adhered to, both being due to the shortage of crews. We have a failure to cope with the load at peak hours, with people left behind because the buses are full. We have a network which is too sparse for low-density areas, and we have relatively high fares, and all these interact one on the other. Faced with this problem the Ministry of Transport wrings its hands in despair and refers complaints to the transport users' consultative committee, which can remedy individual defects and tinker about with the system, but cannot alter policy.
My hon. Friends the Members for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), and I, in consultation with the local authorities concerned in the area, have been trying for some months to persuade the Minister to see us so that we can discuss with her the changes in policy that are needed, for nothing less than a change in policy will now suffice. But I am sorry to say that the Minister, like her predecessor, has so far blankly refused even to see us.
What I am saying is perhaps a little academic now, since after 1st April it will be my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) who will be dealing with these problems. So all I am doing now is crying over spilt milk. But I am putting my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend on warning that if they do not do something about it when they take over I shall make their lives a hell.
When the Minister refused to see our deputation she said that she did not think it would serve any useful purpose unless we had some constructive alternative to suggest. Therefore, I take this opportunity to make two constructive proposals. They are alternatives. I believe that one of them is good, and the other is a good deal less good, but it seems to me that both could be tried on a pilot scheme basis to prove which is better.
The less good one is that of having a municipal bus service in the area heavily subsidised either from the rates, or, if this is to be a Ministry of Transport pilot scheme, from central Government funds, the object being to see whether, if a service is sufficiently heavily subsidised,


it can be made so attractive and so efficient as to attract a vastly increased weight of passengers and in due course become entirely independent of the subsidy.
I am not at all sure whether this would work. I believe that something of this sort has been tried and has worked in Sunderland. The situation is obviously very different there, and I am not at all sure that it could work on the outskirts of a major transport undertaking such as London Transport, but it might be worth trying.
The alternative, which I very much prefer, is that which I was hardly able to mention in the debate on 9th February, and this is to try to cut London Transport's operations on the fringes down to the level at which they can operate both profitably and efficiently This could be done, I believe, if London Transport, were able to operate at roughly the same level throughout the day. This would obviate the need for a split shift system and lead to a more economical use of the buses which it has. If this is done there will obviously then be a grossly inadequate capacity at peak hours.
I suggest that we allow private operators to come into this gap to provide the additional buses at peak hours, running under a licence system along London Transport routes. I explained on 9th February how this could be done, because the smaller operators running these buses would have the much greater flexibility that goes with a small firm. When the peak hour buses were not in use, the operators could put their drivers on to other engineering work, repairing customers' cars, and so on.
In that way, London Transport would be operated evenly throughout the day and additional capacity would be provided at morning and evening peak hours by private operators, further supplemented by allowing major firms in the area to run their own buses for their own workers. To do this they should be allowed to charge, otherwise there would be inequality of remuneration for those employees who could and those who could not use the firm's buses.
We could go even further. Private operators could be used to run feeder services to the main routes through the

large housing estates, using mini-buses or even very large cars for the purpose. Provided that the vehicles used were adapted to their needs, I believe that there is here a profitable sector for operation with reasonable fares. The result would be not only to increase the amount of traffic along the main routes operated by London Transport and the private operators, but to provide a much better coverage of the large housing estates.
I freely accept that this combination of private and public transport would need co-ordination. It would need licensing. It could not simply be done on a free-for-all-basis. I am, however, convinced that unless a flexible, pragmatic approach such as I have suggested is adopted, we shall have a further deterioration in the provision of bus transport in the outer Metropolitan district to the point where it will shortly break up.

4.52 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): This is almost a repeat performance, but not quite, of 9th February, when the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) raised the subject of public transport in and around Slough. Then, however, the hon. Member and I were slightly circumscribed by the rules of order. On this occasion, the hon. Member has ranged over the whole of the subject that he wished to cover. I will endeavour to reply accordingly.
I wish to correct one point straight away. The hon. Member suggested that my right hon. Friend the Minister and I had refused to meet a deputation of hon. Members of the House. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend's predecessor, my right hon. Friend and myself have never done any such thing. What happened was that the hon. Members whom the hon. Member mentioned wrote to my right hon. Friend's predecessor and asked to come and see him about matters that were clearly the managerial responsibility of the London Transport Board.
My right hon. Friend quite reasonably pointed out that they were functions in which he was debarred by Statute from interfering, but that if the hon. Members concerned would define the policy issues as distinct from the operational and managerial questions on which they wished to see him, he would be prepared


to reconsider the matter. That is the present position of my right hon. Friend.
As Parliamentary Secretary I have certainly never refused to receive any Member of the House, from whatever quarter, in regard to matters that were properly the political responsibility of my Department. I hope that that position will continue.

Sir A. Meyer: I do not have the letter before me, but in his last letter to the present Minister my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said that a policy decision was now required and that it was no longer a matter for the transport users' consultative committee. He therefore asked the Minister to receive a deputation from us.

Mr. Swingler: Perhaps the hon. Member does not appreciate the enormous number of requests for deputations from local authorities and organised interests, quite apart from hon. Members of the House, who would always have priority with those holding office in the Ministry of Transport, on the vast range of issues which the Department covers. Therefore, if we are to have discussions which bear fruit, it is exceedingly important for us that the policy issues in question should be defined and that proposals should be put to us so that they may be examined before a deputation is received.
The hon. Member has drawn attention to a local situation which illustrates, as he said, a serious problem which confronts us nationally. That serious problem is the continued deterioration, which has been going on over several years, in public transport, especially in our big towns and cities. All hon. Members know that this is no novel situation. It is a Rake's progress which has been going on over a long period, and it is due principally to three factors.
The first factor, which is the main part of the vicious circle—like the chicken-and-egg problem, it is difficult to say where it actually starts—is the increasing traffic congestion. This is not an excuse; it is a fact. We must draw the attention of all to the fact that it will continue to magnify and that there will be more and more traffic as more people who, quite rightly, enjoy the

higher standard of living of a Labour Government will be able to own and use their own cars. There will, therefore, be increasing congestion, especially in the urban areas. This has seriously interfered with the operations of public transport operators of all kinds.
I stress "of all kinds". We have three kinds of public transport operators. There are those which are nationally owned, undertakings which are municipally owned, and some which are privately owned. All these operators have been subject to the increasing traffic congestion in the towns arising from the use of cars by commuters, and this has created a deterioration in their ability to move.
Secondly, as the hon. Member mentioned, a closely linked problem is that of shortage of staff, which is much worse in some places than in others. It has particularly badly affected Slough and district. The hon. Member knows well from his correspondence with the London Transport Board concerning Route 81, for example, that Hounslow garage is 18 per cent. below strength in bus drivers. That is a serious matter. It means that the Board cannot provide an adequate service. This is admitted. It is due to staff shortage. The same problem has also affected Thames Valley and other important routes, including Windsor garage. The shortage of both drivers and conductors seriously affects the ability of London Transport and Thames Valley to provide the adequate service which, under the law, they are supposed to provide.
The third factor that naturally follows from these other two is the worsening financial position. I do not want to repeat what I said in reply to the hon. Member on 9th February, but we all know that the position has been closely investigated during the present Parliament by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which devoted a great deal of time to examining all these affairs, especially financial, of the London Transport Board and analysing the deterioratiing position.
In consequence of that, as I said, this Government—my right hon. Friend's predecessor—took the special action last summer of making for the first time in its history a direct grant to the London Transport Board to avert temporarily a further vicious circle of fare increases


and loss of traffic. It was insufficient and I use this opportunity to say again that, unfortunately, we face a position where probably the London Transport Board will need further financial help in some form or another in 1966.
So that we have this position, which we do not, let me assure the hon. Gentleman, approach in a spirit of despair, as the hon. Gentleman suggested we in the Ministry of Transport were, that these public transport operators are not able to fulfil either of the functions imposed by this Government's predecessors upon the London Transport Board. The two functions were, first to provide an adequate service for the public, and, secondly, to pay its way, to be financially viable. We find a situation in 1966 where it is neither financially viable owing to the loss of traffic nor is it able to provide an adequate service.
This is one of the reasons, therefore, why my right hon. Friend has very recently established the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London, a new body composed of representatives of the Greater London Council, the London Transport Board, the British Railways Board, and representatives of the London boroughs, to come to grips with the sort of recommendations made by the Select Committee about the L.T.B.'s financial structure and future. But immediately there is the problem of co-ordination, especially in peripheral areas like Slough, where London Transport meets such operators as Thames Valley.
But in order rapidly to propose the financial reforms which we recognise are urgently needed we have to decide whether these aims are irreconcilable, as irreconcilable they appear to be—the provision of an adequate public transport service, and, at the same time, a system which pays its way. We are quite firm, and my right hon. Friend has announced this quite definitely, that our aim must be to provide adequate public transport in our towns. That is the only way in which we can solve the problem. Therefore, we shall review the legislation of the past and the system for the future to decide by what means financially we shall be able to cover the losses which at present confront us.
Let me say a word about private operators. The hon. Gentleman was sug-

gesting that we could get a lot more help, to supplement and augment services provided, for example, by the L.T.B. and Thames Valley in areas like Slough, by the recruitment of private operators. Let me say that on the part of the Government and the London Transport Board there is no objection to private operators. Indeed, the Board, as the hon. Gentleman knows, recently consented, where private operators applied, to their coming in and operating several routes.
There is no objection to firms running their own transport, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that if they are running their own transport for work journeys for their workers and are making charges they are entering the field of public transport and they must, therefore, be licensed under the laws we have had for very many years, and that in itself would create difficulties. If, on the other hand, firms wish to run transport, but not to make charges to the workers, there is absolutely no objection to that.
What is the situation about private operators in the area of the London Transport Board? The situation is that nobody has applied since 1962—with one exception, and in that case consent was given. A private operator applied in the Eton and Slough area to run a service between High Wycombe and London Airport to link with services from the West, and he was given consent. He is the only example of a private operator coming forward to use the facilities of the 1962 Act; and he applied to the London Transport Board for consent to go to the traffic commissioner to have a service licensed. Therefore, we say to the hon. Gentleman and to others that if there are private operators who are willing to come forward in order to supplement existing services, let them come forward, let them make application to those who are at present in the field under existing law. I think that what the Board has recently decided as its policy shows that the applications will be given favourable consideration.
We must recognise that there is a need for a combined operation of public and private operators in this field, though I should, of course, say this. As a matter of realism we must recognise that we cannot have a situation where private operators cream off all the remunerative routes


leaving the public operators with only the unremunerative routes, for that would only worsen the position of those like the L.T.B. charged with responsibility in major centres with providing an adequate public transport system. It would imply that they must be permanently in receipt of subsidy. We want in some form or another to make public transport financially viable.
Nevertheless, especially in peripheral areas, it may well be that, because of staff shortage and traffic congestion and financial difficulties, the London Transport Board cannot provide the comprehensive service we would hope in the future we can organise it to provide, and if private operators who wish to do so will come forward they will receive reasonable consideration as to how they can augment the service.

Sir A. Meyer: Does that include operators along the same routes as London Transport and at peak hours?

Mr. Swingler: This is something which has been done, and it will be considered, but again, it is not for us at the Ministry to say: it is a managerial matter for the London Transport Board. I do say that the Board, in the action that it has had to take, owing especially to staff shortage, in the streamlining and reduction of services, has at the same time, approached in a very reasonable way the applications of private operators to come in and supplement the services.
I must mention again that, in spite of the dark sides and difficulties of this picture, nevertheless, as, I think, the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, we have in his area managed to make some improvement. There was the difficulty of the L.T.B. and Thames Valley, but at the initiative of Slough Borough Council the London Transport Board, in conjunction with Thames Valley, has now been operating since 22nd January this year a new cross-town route and the Board has recently introduced an express coach service from Windsor to London, and with new and more comfortable coaches. So that some effort has been shown to make technical improvements and to accept the suggestions which are put forward by local representatives.
To conclude, can the attack on this public transport problem be the responsibility of any one organisation in any area? It is a problem which confronts us all—as citizens, as passengers, as travellers, as car-owners and drivers or as travellers on buses and trains, and especially, of course, local authorities charged with responsibility for traffic management. They all face some part of the challenge of the growth in the number of cars and the difficulties of making public transport viable financially and organised adequately.
We hope that, in developing the policy of transport co-ordination, all who are concerned with these responsibilities will come forward with their suggestions as to how to make the services more adequate, how to manage the traffic regulations better, how to co-ordinate the operators in a better way, and whether they are authorities like the new Greater London Council, or the L.T.B., or private operators.
They will put their heads together as transport operators and local representatives dealing with traffic management, so that all over the country we can get transport co-ordination councils where those concerned with different facets of the problem will come together. Only in that way will we maintain adequate transport facilities in our cities and towns for the future.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: In my opinion, the last election was fought primarily upon the issue of housing. Other issues were raised, but that was the most important one in the mind of the average elector, and it is the one which will be in his mind in the coming election. The subject that I wish to raise today is precisely that.
As I said in my maiden speech, in my own constituency at the time of the last election, I came across a case of intimidation under the old law relating to private tenants. I am glad to say that under the Rent Act which we have passed we no longer could have such a system, and for that I congratulate my right hon. Friend.
Two things have been done for the private tenant by the Rent Act. We have instituted security of tenure and we have instituted a system whereby fair rents can be imposed upon tenants. But that is not enough. What we have to do in the case of most privately rented properties is to get rid of the bad ones. Not all privately rented property can be described as such, but in my own constituency most of it is property which is unsuited to human habitation by today's standards. Yet, like most other authorities, the city of Nottingham has always been in a dilemma. For every 1,000 houses built in the city, another 1s. a week would go on the rents of existing local authority tenants. That was the situation under the old subsidy rule.
The local authority has been in a dilemma. Was it to build more houses and clear slum areas, or was it to avoid doing so and thus keep down rents of existing local authority tenants? I am glad to say that by the new subsidy proposals for local authorities, by keeping down rates of interest to local authorities, my own authority has been encouraged to build again without imposing high rents upon their existing tenants. In the current financial year, there will be between 1,600 and 1,700 houses started in Nottingham. The chairman of the housing committee informs me that, by the financial year 1969–70, the proposal is to reach 3,000 houses a year, which, for the first time, will start to make a real impact on the problem in Nottingham. It may be said that it ought to have been done before, but it would not be illegitimate to point out that the city has had a period of Conservative government locally which has not exactly assisted the housing programme.
My right hon. Friend's Ministry has recently announced additional subsidies for cities such as Nottingham which have slum clearance of problems, but another condition attached to it is that they must have been doing something about them in the past above the average of other local authorities. Since that cannot be said of Nottingham, I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether, in circumstances such as I have just illustrated, where a local authority shows that it is willing to do something and does something about its slum clearance problem, he will extend his proposals to such a

city, as well as those that he has announced in his programme for the slum clearance subsidy. He may not want to commit himself today, but I hope that he will not preclude local authorities from being ambitious in the direction of clearing existing bad houses.
The last point that I would like to mention is the position of owner-occupiers. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing has come to realise the extraordinary situation where the larger a person's income the higher his tax, then the higher the subsidy he got if he was an owner-occupier buying a house on mortgage. The situation of a poorer man who wants to become an owner-occupier or an owner-occupier with a family and, therefore, a relatively low tax rate has been deplorable, because he was the man who was unsubsidised as against even the local authority tenant or the man with a bigger income who was an owner-occupier.
I am glad to see that subsidies have now been introduced which will assist owner-occupiers, but what I should like to see and what I hope will be the case eventually is that the Ministry's policy will lead to a situation where everyone can either rent or buy a house as he desires without being over-influenced by the subsidy rate, that whilst the poor and needy are relatively subsidised, we do something to assist a general situation which has not been assisted in the past. A recent opinion poll showed that three times as many people want to rent houses as want to buy them. They were precluded from doing so in the past because, if they did what they wanted to do, they would have been subsidised to a lesser extent than if they did what they did not want to do.
I hope that my right hon. Friend's policy will be such as to encourage people to do what they want and assist the freedom of the individual, so that if a man wants to rent a house he will be able to rent it at a reasonable rent, and if he wants to buy a house he will be able to buy it at a reasonable cost.
For once, let us have a system which helps people to do what they want, instead of having imposed upon them some ideological policy that they must be owner-occupiers when they would prefer to rent properties. I hope that we can


assist the freedom of the individual in that way.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) for bringing forward this subject for debate and discussion at the last session of our Parliament. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his responsible officials for the way in which they have attempted to tackle the problems in the London area.
In 1965 we had a record number of houses or dwellings built in this country—a greater number than at any time in our previous history. It is to the credit of the Government that they were able to accomplish that in view of the legacy with which they were left. Their efforts now to reduce interest rates for local authorities and give some form of subsidy in the way of Income Tax relief to people of low earnings who wish to buy their own houses deserve the admiration of us all.
I am very glad that my own local authority, Wandsworth, is included in the authorities which are going to get a special subsidy because of their housing problems. I am glad to think that my own authority will benefit from that.
In the London Borough of Wandsworth there is still a large amount of railway land lying idle. If my right hon. Friend could see to it when he is returned that we get a supply of that railway land for building, we would be very much obliged. The situation in Battersea and Wandsworth is very difficult. There are over 7,000 people on the waiting lists, and an enormous task confronts the local authority.
I must say that there are many contributions made by other sources of housing which help reduce the amount of people on housing lists in local authorities. I thank the owner-occupiers in Battersea, South, for letting part of their premises to families in need of houses, and the thanks of the local authority, too, are due to them for the assistance which they have given.
Unfortunately, in my constituency and in the neighbouring ones there is an enormous amount of empty property. It is usually owned by absentee landlords

who buy houses as an investment and have no intention of living in them. Invariably they look for houses with part possession. Having found such a place, they deliberately keep half of it empty, in the hope that the people in the flat upstairs—or downstairs as the case may be—will move out so that the property can be sold at a handsome profit. This happens all the time in London, and this is why I wish to quote two examples which have been brought to my notice in my constituency.
The first example is that of a house on the north side of Clapham Common. In September the house was sold to a property company. The tenants there have not paid any rent since then, because they do not know the name of the new owner. The local authority has been unable to obtain its rates from the owner, because it does not know who owns the property, and the tenants are now paying their rates direct to the council. In this case, a flat consisting of three rooms, a bathroom, and toilet has been empty since last September, while there are thousands of families in Battersea and Wandsworth who are living six in one room. It is scandalous that this sort of thing is allowed to continue.
The second example is that of a house in Eccles Road, Battersea. It is a six-roomed house. A man, his wife and six children live in two rooms on the ground floor, and they also have a kitchen and scullery. The flat upstairs is empty, and has been for 12 months. The tenant of the downstairs flat applied to the estate agent who controls the property for permission to occupy the whole house, but this request was refused. The conditions under which this family are living are so bad that the local authority wrote to the estate agent asking if he would be prepared to let the other flat to this family. Within 24 hours he replied that he could not consider that under any circumstances.
That is the sort of thing that is happening in London. The owner of the property to which I have referred—who may be the estate agent—is waiting for the council to rehouse the people who are living on the ground floor flat so that he can sell the house with vacant possession and make a handsome profit out of somebody's misery.
I hope that when a new Labour Government is returned to power the Estate Agents Bill which was introduced by the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) will be reintroduced and made Law, because I think that it is an admirable Measure. It was, of course, opposed by some hon. Gentlemen opposite in the Standing Committee. There was a split on the benches opposite on the question of whether estate agents should also have property interests. Members of the party opposite opposed the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) that estate agents should not at the same time be dealers in property, but the Amendment was carried by 15 votes to 6.
I have brought these matters to the notice of the House because, whereas local authorities have a moral obligation to do all that they can to help the people in their areas, private property owners who do not live in their property can keep their houses empty for as long as they like while thousands of people have nowhere to live.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West for raising this subject, and I hope that the Minister will consider releasing some railway land in Wandsworth for housing.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) on raising this topic. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having to leave the Chamber for a few moments, but I had to go out to alter an appointment when I realised that he had been called to speak.
I gather that the hon. Gentleman was making a plea for an equal number of houses for rent and sale.

Mr. English: That is not quite correct. I was making a plea for equal treatment for those who desire to be owner-occupiers and for those who desire to rent houses. I was not making a plea for equal numbers of houses.

Mr. Costain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me on that point. In principle I agree that there should be equal opportunities, and if necessary equal financial opportunities, for people wishing to buy or rent their houses. Over

the years I have pointed out to hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were on this side of the House that considerable restrictions have been placed upon respectable property companies. I am not referring to the few spivs to whom the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) referred. There are spivs in every type of business. I am referring to the ordinary property company whose job it is to provide an investment for genuine investors, and to provide a service to the people. They have been restricted over the past 13 years because of the threat by the then Labour Opposition to bring in rent legislation. The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) laughs. This is a serious matter. People's homes are not things to laugh about.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: I was not laughing at the problem of housing people. I was laughing because I am getting a little tired of the nonsense that we hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite about people's housing problems in our worst cities. We need to hear a little more sense talked on this subject.

Mr. Costain: The hon. Gentleman will be relieved of that difficulty in three weeks' time, because he will not be here then. If he thinks that the problem of housing is nonsense, I assure him that a number of hon. Members do not agree with him.
If we are to provide houses to rent, we must give a fair deal both to the people who build the houses, and to those who occupy them. This is the point at issue. If, when in Opposition, hon. Gentlemen opposite had made clear their intentions over the Rent Bill, there might have been more buildings to rent. I do not think that they yet realise the implications of the Rent Act. Quite a number of rents will be put up if the rent tribunals do their job properly, and so they should. I am glad that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me on that point, because I think that if more had been said about the Rent Act before it was introduced, more houses would have been built to rent.
I was amazed when I heard the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) congratulating the Minister of Housing and Local Government on producing 50,000 fewer completed houses than the number which the Government took over


when they came into power. If they think that this is a matter for congratulation, they should think again. It is a perfect scandal that we should have 800 million bricks lying in the brick yards, and 15 brick works closed down because of lack of orders at a time when the Government have produced 50,000 fewer houses. Eight hundred million bricks would build 50,000 houses, so the figures almost balance themselves.

Mr. Ivor Richard: Is the hon. Gentleman denying that in 1965 more houses were built than in 1964?

Mr. Costain: I am not denying that more houses were built. I am making a statement of fact. When the present Government took office, there were 434,000 houses under construction, and they managed the miracle of completing nearly 50,000 fewer. I have made the point on several occasions. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will follow this with some care, because whenever he has wound up a debate on this topic he has been confused. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh. They cannot take the housing problem seriously. A private enterprise house can be built within seven months, on average, while a public authority house, on average, takes 14 months to build.
Hon. Members opposite immediately say, "Why does not private enterprise build as quickly for public authorities as it builds for itself?". I will spell out in detail the reason for this. Once a public authority starts to build houses itself it produces a firm specification and firm conditions of contract. If there is then any shortage of materials the first thing that happens is that building is held up, because the specification cannot be complied with. When a private builder is building for himself, on the other hand, he can change the specification. He does not get paid for his house until it is occupied, and he therefore has every incentive for getting it finished on time. When he is building for a local authority payments are made on each section of the work done. There is not the same desire to complete the house quickly, as there is if he is building for himself. That is why it takes seven months when he is building for himself as against 14

months when he is building for a public authority.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that on that basis the private builder is interested in making quick profits by private building and perhaps not so quick profits from public enterprise building?

Mr. Costain: Hon. Members opposite always relate everything to profits. They take the view that "profits" is a dirty word. We could not finance our industries if profits were not made. I am not referring to profits; I am referring to getting cash in. A builder may have £2,500 coming to him when a house is occupied, but he is not receiving a penny until it is occupied, although he is paying interest to the bank in the meantime.
It is the doctrinaire principle of the Labour Government to cut down the number of houses built by private enterprise and to increase the number built by public enterprise.

Mr. Brian Walden: The hon. Member is making an extremely interesting point. Some of us on this side of the House are surprised that he does not see the logic of it, namely, that private enterprise, through the very operation of this profit motive—which may be a good thing—simply cannot build sufficient houses for renting. It will not and it never has built houses for rent that are most needed in constituencies like mine.

Mr. Costain: The hon. Member may not have heard what I said in opening. Had he been in the House when the present Foreign Secretary was shadow Minister of Housing he would have heard me promise him that if the then Labour Opposition would undertake to act fairly towards landlords and not introduce their Rent Bill if they were returned to power, I would guarantee that the company that I am connected with would build 5,000 houses to rent the next year. After I had made that promise another company rang me up and said that it would do the same.
If a Labour Government are regrettably returned to power I hope that they will learn that if they are to build the number of houses which the public want they must use the full facilities of private enterprise as well as public enterprise. They


will have to be dissuaded from their present attitude, which favours building by direct labour. If hon. Members have any doubt about the direct labour point they should refer to the productivity figures and compare output per man under direct labour and under private builders. Under direct labour it is a little over £1,000 per man per year, but under private organised schemes it is a little over £2,000.
The housing problem can be solved, and it will be solved. I am delighted that my right hon. Friends have put forward proposals to build 500,000 houses a year by the end of 1968. That is the target. It can be done, but only by using the facilities and initiatives which a Conservative Government will apply to the housing problem.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: As I understood the hon. Member's speech, he was putting forward two arguments. First, he was saying that somehow or other, despite the fact that the Labour Government built more houses in 1965 than were built in 1964, they completed less than the Conservatives did in their last year of office. I cannot follow that argument. Secondly, he was arguing—and this argument seems to be even more convoluted—that if only the Labour Party, when in Opposition, had pledged that it would not introduce a measure of rent control, the effect of which was to enable people to rent houses at rents they could afford, companies like that in which he is interested would have built houses for rent at rents which the people could not afford. With the greatest respect to to the hon. Member, that does not seem to be a very great contribution towards solving the problem of housing our people.
He might have built some delightful houses to rent at £8, £9 or £10 a week in my constituency. The only trouble is that not enough people in my constituency could afford the rents that he would charge.

Mr. Costain: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say that the Labour Government did not produce more houses They could not help doing so because of the number already in the pipeline. The whole problem about rent is not the question of what rent would

be charged, but the unfair deal which was promised to the landlords by the Labour Party.

Mr. Richard: It will not do for the hon. Member to say that. He is saying that we should have given a pledge not to interfere with the law of the market in respect of rented property. I assume that he and his party are still in favour of the operation of the law of the free market in rented property. If we had undertaken not to interfere, companies like his, apparently, would have gone round the country building vast quantities of houses to let. Given the level of rent and the cost of building under his party's administration, and considering areas such as that which I represent—an area in the centre of London—the only effect would have been that houses would have been built for letting at rents which the people could not afford. Therefore, it is nonsense for hon. Members opposite to say that the law of the market should operate and that, in perhaps 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, people who are now waiting to be housed in Hammersmith would be housed—not by the Hammersmith Borough Council but by the sort of company which he represents.

Mr. Freeson: Does my hon. Friend also recall that during the operation of the 1957 Rent Act the quantity of rented accommodation fell by 1,300,000 units?

Mr. Richard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have had the operation of a free market in rented property between 1957 and 1965. It is surprising that the hon. Member and his party should try to blame us, when we were not in office, for the fact that the free market did not work. I am surprised that he put up that suggestion. While the free market operated the supply of private rented property did not increase, as his party prophesied. It decreased. What is more monstrous about the policy of the party opposite is that at the time when they took the lid off rents and removed controls by the 1957 Rent Act, thus reducing the supply of rented property, they also reduced the supply of council houses, which meant that people at the lower end of the wages scale who were looking for rented council property, and had been waiting far too long, were faced with the alternative either of continuing to wait or of competing for the shrinking


amount of private rented property available in our big cities. With the sort of nonsense which we have had from the hon. Gentleman—I use the phrase with the greatest respect that I can summon up for his argument—and from his party on this subject this afternoon, I trust that they will go on repeating it between now and 31st March, because it is an argument which can do my party nothing but good.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) on two facts. I congratulate him, first, on his Ministry in the last 17 months, and, second, because I understand that he has just become a grandfather. I would not like that occasion to pass without it being placed on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT that my hon. Friend has at last attained that blissful state of grandparent-hood which, I am told, is a pleasing one to reach—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I am a very young grandfather.

Mr. Richard: Since this is the last effective day of this Parliament, it is appropriate that one should think back to the position before the 1964 election and compare the housing position then with what it is today. Before the 1964 election, people in my constituency would come to see me, as the Labour candidate, with two main worries about housing. I invite the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe to pay attention to this.
These people in Hammersmith had two main worries. One was the lack of security under the Rent Act, which this party opposed. They were worried, therefore, if they had notice to quit from their landlord, about what would happen to them and where they were to go. Second, they were worried that they might not be able to afford, in the majority of cases, to pay the market rent being asked for the shrinking amount of private rented accommodation. These were the worries which time and again were put to me during the campaign and in the months and years ahead. I judge this on a personal and, perhaps, on a parochial basis.
However, the people in my constituency who come to see me in my "surgery" now are not worried about notice to quit being served on them by the landlord or, to the same extent, about the sort of rents which they might be asked to pay. There is a very simple reason for this: this party and this Government passed the Rent Act in 1965. The two main principles of that Act—I beg the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe to try to follow this part of the argument at least—which are of crucial importance to ordinary people are, first, they now have security of tenure in their own homes, which was not available under the previous Administration, and, second, there is now machinery for fixing fair rents and the local rent officer can intervene.
When we introduced the Act, it was said that it interfered wiht the law of the market and might diminish the amount of property to rent. Of course it is interference with the law of the market in rented property: it was intended to be. The effect of the law of the market in rented property in our big cities was that the amount available to rent went down and the rent of that which was available went up. In those circumstances, it is obviously right that a Government should interfere with the law of the market. The effect has been that rents are beginning to come down, to find a level below the market level. So they should: that was the object of the Act of 1965.
It is interesting to see how the Act is operating. One cannot yet give many accurate statistics, but such as I have been able to gather in my constituency indicate at any rate that rents are beginning to come down. I put it no higher than that. I find, for example, that the rental of a flat in a mansion block in my constituency for which the asking rent was £375 per annum has been fixed by the rent officer at £275 per annum: this has now been accepted as fair by the landlord. I find that a rental of five guineas a week for two rooms sharing a kitchen has been reduced to £3, and so it should be. The rent of a room which was £3 10s. has been reduced to 32s. 6d.
I even hear—I am afraid that I cannot confirm this figure with the same degree of authority as with the others—


that a rent of £19 per week for a house in a road in my constituency has been reduced by the rent officer to no more than £6.
It seems to me, therefore, that the Rent Act 1965 is beginning to work. What will its cumulative effects be? I waited a long time in this Parliament to hear from the party opposite a logical attack on the principles behind that Act and a logical argument against the way in which the Government say it will work out. What will happen over a period is that the general level of rents being charged for private accommodation in an area, like London will come down.
The other effect of the Government's policy—this is of equal importance: one has to look at council housing and the private rental policy together—is that council building is not going down as it was for many sad and weary years under the administration of the party opposite. It is at last beginning to go up. Councils are fortunately beginning to plan a long time ahead. They are considering more imaginative schemes of council development than they ever could do in the last decade.
Ten years ago, a local authority knew that if it produced a large-scale development scheme, first, it could not afford the interest rate on its money, and secondly, it possibly could not afford the land and there was no certainty that the Conservative Administration would give loan sanction anyway. In my own borough, the Hammersmith Council, I am happy to say, has lifted its sights above the municipal gutter which was, unfortunately, the level of the horizon which so many councils were forced—I emphasise the word "forced"—to abide by under the last Administration.
They are in the process of producing an imaginative scheme which will, admittedly, cost money. However, I hope that in due course certain representations may be made in certain quarters to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a result of which the finance will be forthcoming. The result of the scheme will be that 3,000 families—10,000 people—can be housed on a site in west London. How is it that the council can now produce this scheme which it could not produce when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in Government?
There are three reasons. One is that it is being built over railway land and, under the party opposite, railway land was not released for council development. I hope hon. Members will remember that, when we came in in October, 1964, the available railway land in London was not capable of being released for council development. Why? Because the administration of the party opposite insisted that full economic prices had to be charged for that land before it could be released for any development, which meant that councils were priced out of the market. This scheme is being built over railway land—an imaginative, forward-looking scheme to house 10,000 people.
The second reason why it is possible is that it looks as if money will be forthcoming from a Labour Government which was not forthcoming from the previous Government. The third reason is that we are trying, in the Housing (Subsidies) Bill, to bring interest rates generally down to an even 4 per cent. I hope the country will note, when the election occurs, that the party opposite opposed the Bill. I have no doubt that in a few years—perhaps two or three—the party opposite will be taking credit for the fact that a Labour Government introduced a scheme whereby interest rates for council accommodation are kept down to an even 4 per cent.
However, at the moment, when it is only three weeks to polling day and the last time of settlement, it seems that the party opposite are in opposition to that scheme, on what doctrinaire grounds I have never been clear—

Mr. Costain: Is the hon. Member saying that a possible future Labour Government will keep interest rates up so high that the subsidy can go on?

Mr. Richard: What I am inferring is that, given the present situation, it is more helpful for councils to know that they can plan their housing programmes forward—knowing that there is an even interest rate of 4 per cent.—than it was under the system which hon. Gentlemen opposite enshrined in their legislation, whereby councils were never quite sure how much they would get or how much they would have to pay for it. Our system is more helpful for local authorities than the system operated by the


party opposite. This scheme in West London seems to provide the possibility of a break-through in housing in that area, and I hope that in his reply to the debate my hon. Friend will say one or two things about it.
Finally, may I comment on the Government's whole approach to housing. It has been imaginative and it has been forward-looking. On what is it based? It seems to me to be based on three principles. One is that a target of half-a-million houses a year is attainable by 1970. Let the House note that that will mean an increase of about 20,000 houses a year between now and 1970. When an annual increase of that sort has been achieved, I can see no reason why that rate of increase should not continue well into the 1970's—unless hon. Members opposite think it impossible to attain a building rate of 650,000 to 700,000 houses a year. It is worth remembering that last year West Germany, with a broadly comparable economic base and broadly comparably in size, built no fewer than 623,000 houses. This is worth noting. One other notable feature is that the ratio between council house building and private development under the Government's White Paper will be fairer to the local authorities than was the ratio under the Conservative Government's policies.
The second principle upon which the Government's policy is based is that the private tenant needs protection in a situation where there are not sufficient private houses to go round—and this is the object behind the Rent Act, 1965.
The third principle is that owner-occupiers, whether of freehold or of leasehold property, need encouragement. Hence we have our leasehold enfranchisement proposals, which the Conservative Party seem to oppose, and we also have the new Government scheme for cheaper mortgages for those people who need more assistance to buy their own houses.
If by chance one walked out of this building at 1 p.m. tomorrow and was knocked down by a taxicab—I can think of no other disaster which would prevent one's return to the House—and if as a consequence one were not capable of

returning to the House, it would still be a fact that the Government will go down in history for their humane, forward-looking, progressive, thoughtful and energetic approach to the whole question of housing the people. For the first time for many years we have a Government in office who have grasped the scope of the problem and are producing policies which will meet it which are realistic, practical and humane.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have no wish to detain the House for any length of time, because I am sure that hon. Members want to get back to their constituencies. But I have tried in practically every debate in this Parliament to speak on housing, and I think that I was lucky enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on one occasion only.
I particularly wanted to speak on housing during the course of this Parliament because the housing problem on Merseyside, and in Liverpool in particular, is our greatest problem. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) that the one thing which the Labour Government have shown above all else is that they can tackle the housing difficulties. When we consider that for thirteen years under the Tory Administration the housing problem got worse every year and the multifarious problems grew in character, it is a great compliment to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the whole of his Ministry that for the first time in those years we are seriously getting to grips with the many housing problems.
Housing is the greatest social problem that we have. I knew this in Liverpool long before I came to this House, because I was a city councillor in an area where every week I had men and women coming to me with housing problems. Sometimes at midnight I used to go from those interviews heartily sick because of the problems about which those people had told me. Some people were living in terribly overcrowded conditions, with married sons and daughters in the same house as their parents. Families were breaking up because of the impossible living conditions. Husband and wife were being set against each other, parents were being set against their children, women were suffering from nervous breakdowns.
This is what has happened due to neglect by the Tory Party in thirteen years of Tory control. But at last we are beginning to deal with these problems. One of the most difficult problems which local authorities have had is knowing where they would get the necessary money at a reasonable rate of interest. Now they know that they will be able to get it as a result of the Housing Subsidies Bill, which the Government introduced in this Parliament. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary upon the introduction of this Bill because it means that great cities such as Liverpool will know that they can get their money at 4 per cent. Incidentally, it should be remembered that the Conservative Party reduced housing subsidies to nil at one stage. Local authorities know that under a Labour Administration they will at least get a subsidy of £60 per house on houses which they build in future.
Four Liverpool Members went on a deputation to the Ministry, and they saw the Minister. We suggested that the conurbations—not only Liverpool but other great conurbations, too—should be given some special assistance. I am not saying that the deputation were responsible for the Government's action, but certainly we helped to point out the fact that it was essential, and I am delighted that the Government have clearly indicated that the great conurbations with special problems will get additional assistance. Every house completed after 25th November last year will rate for a subsidy. But there is something about which the country ought to be warned, particularly people living in the great conurbations: if—God forbid!—the Tory Party were returned to power at any time, this assistance would end. The conurbations would not get this additional assistance which they will get from a Labour Government.
I hope that the House has taken note of the speech of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) because he is only one example of many who represent the Conservative Party. One gentleman in Liverpool talked about the Rent Act giving the Labour Party their pound of flesh from the landlord. When I think of the pound of flesh which the landlords have had from the tenants in Liverpool in the past; when I think of the terrible exploitation of

poor people which has taken place—poor people who had to go into one or two rooms, paying exorbitant rents, and in a sense happy to pay those rents because the alternative was no accommodation at all; when I think of those things, I am astonished by talk of a pound of flesh being taken from the landlords, particularly when some landlords have allowed their property to fall into a terrible state of disrepair. The situation has been appalling. Now the Labour Party are clearing the matter up. We have only just begun. It is understood in the country that this is the beginning of the road and that, step by step, we will finally crack this difficult housing problem.
When the Labour Party return after the General Election I hope that we will see an extension of industrialised building, not only by private enterprise but also publicly. In this connection, I want the Government to establish a public building corporation with mobile units which will operate in those areas with the most serious housing problems. For this purpose we may need to attract some immigrant labour to work in these units. We may have to do this to avoid overstretching the already far-stretched building industry.
Various types of building are going on in our large cities. In Liverpool, for example, we have the city centre development, the city's housing programme, a new docks system coming along and a new road building programme. Only a certain number of people are available in the industry and we must, therefore, develop industrialised building methods. I will only add, because I do not wish to delay the House, that we will also need to develop industrialised craftsmen, so to speak, who can utilise these methods. This is a trade union point which we can discuss at a later stage. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe agrees with me on this. It is about the only matter on which we shall agree. I am sure that, after the election, we will continue to tackle the difficult housing problem that faces the country.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will recall that I came to see him and his right hon. Friend a few weeks ago to


discuss the problem of council house rents. My local borough council found it necessary to bring its housing revenue account into a greater degree of balance and, to do this, it had to increase council house rents. This is the great dilemma which has faced many local authorities in the last few years.
During the period of high interest rates local authorities have had to decide whether or not to go on building council houses at high cost. Those authorities which decided, irrespective of the amount they had to pay to borrow the money, to go on building have since found their housing revenue accounts being badly in need of being brought into balance. Some of them have, therefore, found it necessary to increase rents.
If the party opposite had not hung on for so long in power and if the present Government had come to power earlier than October, 1964, it would have been possible to have avoided these rent increases. Our 4 per cent. has come rather late, but because of the 4 per cent. local authorities will be able to avoid making council house rent increases in future at the rate at which they have been forced to do in the past.
A word about private rents. I have been doing some investigation in my constituency, in which rent officers have been established. I have some good news for hon. Members who represent provincial constituencies and who are perhaps not yet in a position to discover how the Act is working. While some examples have been given, I can inform the House that in my borough, out of nine cases which have been looked into—that is, when I last examined the problem—six had had reductions in rent, two were the same and the rent of one had been increased. I hope that when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies he will give more figures.

Mr. Mellish: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jenkins: I regret that, because if some figures were available I think they would show that what is happening generally is the sort of pattern I have discovered in my constituency. Eventually I am sure that we will arrive at a rational rent structure in which the fantastic differences in rents which have disfigured

the past will disappear. The absurd disequilibrium which has existed between private and public rents will gradually be evened out, though it may be a somewhat painfully slow process. To give an example of this; one rent of five guineas a week has been reduced to £3 7s. 6d. I fancy that changes of this order will be the pattern which we will see emerging throughout the country.
In my constituency and elsewhere in London there are large blocks of offices which have recently been constructed but which remain unoccupied. I am grateful that one of the first actions of the Labour Government was to arrest the building of office blocks. If that had not been done the amount of house-building which has since gone on would not have been achieved. It is unfortunate that this action was not taken some years ago so that the capital and labour which was put into these office blocks could have been channelled into the building of houses in which people would now be living. This is a great tragedy.
The time will come when the Government will have to say, "We must look at the office building limitation" because the present restriction will one day have to be removed. What will happen then? I suggest that in large towns, certainly in London—and I speak not without experience in this matter because I was on the London County Council's Town Planning Committee for some time—different steps will have to be taken. The action of the past few years has been entirely wrong. We have been zoning areas on assumptions which are no longer valid; zoning assumptions which refer to an industrial society in which industry and business are so noisome and unpleasant that we decided to separate residents from industry and business. This out-dated zoning procedure has been widely established and is today rigidly followed in the great conurbations. I hope that the Minister will consider whether this is still the right approach. Probably it is not. Because of the changes which have taken place in the nature of industry and commerce it may now be possible for this approach to be altered and for residents and commerce to be brought closer together. If we begin to think in this way a number of problems may be answered.
We would certainly begin to find the answer to our transport difficulties. One of the great problems of the separation in the zoning procedure is that first we push people into the suburbs and then we have to bring them in again each day to their offices in the centre. That is a fantastic and a frightening problem. If we were to accept that this is no longer necessary, that it is now possible for people to live adjacent to the places where they work and not be choked with smoke any more—because of the establishment of smokeless zones—if we were to follow the logic of our own developments, we would make quite a new approach.
Another question is that of the amenities of our civilisation. At present, in the heart of our great towns and cities a desert develops at night as people move out. The City of London at night is a complete desert. If it were possible to think of not regarding office blocks as places to be kept alone and separate from residential properties, we should make the centres of our cities more lively and attractive, and do much to solve our public transport and traffic problems.
When these changes are made, I hope that another possibility may be considered. Could it not be made a condition of permission to build an office block that the person building the block should provide, as part of it, an element of residential flat accommodation? Once again, if we could get away from the absurd zoning proposition, we would provide ourselves with the possibility of creating cities which would be more homogenous, more of a whole, and provide more possibility of beginning to meet our living needs.
I agree that the Government are beginning to tackle housing intelligently and competently, and that it is being tackled in that way for the first time for a long time. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend, because they have tackled an extraordinarily difficult problem and one that has not really been satisfactorily solved in any country. The Government are on the right road. We shall encourage them. From time to time we may encourage them a little roughly, but if we push my hon. Friend rather hard from time to time, he must not think that we believe he is on the wrong

path—we merely want to urge him along the right path that he is already following.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: As other hon. Members have observed, on this, the last effective day of this Parliament, it is good to discuss the all-important issue of housing. Housing, as no one knows better than the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, has been one of the major issues of this Parliament, and there is a certain appropriateness in the fact that we should have—if, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you and others are not to be tried too far—a relatively brief debate, but still a debate, on this subject on this last day of Parliament.
To begin on a non-controversial note, I would express a good deal of agreement with what the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has just been saying on the approach to the future planning and layout of housing. The idea of everyone living a long way from their work, and subjecting themselves—particularly in London, but elsewhere, too—to the daily ordeal of rush hour travel, is a fairly new one. Certainly, even a century ago, a great many people lived quite close to their work, and I think that a mistake in planning is that we have tended to segregate work and living. We are paying a considerable price for that, and I believe that, for the future, there is a great deal in what the hon. Member has said on this point.
The hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) both attached enormous importance to the Housing Subsidies Bill and suggested that it would make a marvellous transformation in the provision of accommodation to rent. It is significant that, even at this stage of this Parliament, this Measure has to be described as a Bill and not as an Act, and it is, perhaps, some weakening of the hon. Gentleman's argument that this Measure will fall as a casualty when Prorogation and Dissolution take place tomorrow.
The House may wonder why this is so, if this Measure is as important as it plainly is in the minds of hon. Members. The House gave the Bill a Second Reading in the middle of December—about the 15th, I think. There would


have been ample tune for it to have been passed into law had the Government been prepared to give it priority. My recollection is that they never even sent it to Standing Committee; they preferred other Measures to occupy the time of our Standing Committees. Therefore, whatever credit hon. Members opposite may desire to draw from that Measure in the forthcoming contest must be qualified by this curious lack of enthusiasm for it by the Government which produced it. It could have been law by now, had the Government so wished, had they decided, for example, not to waste the time of the House with the Land Commission Bill. But in this case the Government, in a way almost unprecedented, put this housing Measure into cold storage, although it had a Second Reading well before Christmas. The House will want to mark that point—

Mr. English: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Bill will fall, is he committing his party, should it be in a position to do so, to make sure that no such proposal is introduced?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member appears from that intervention not to understand Parliamentary procedure. This is a Measure introduced in this Parliament by the Government. They have not pushed forward with it. Therefore, automatically on Prorogation,—never mind on Dissolution—the Bill falls, and all the work of it is lost. That is a fact of procedure of which I should have thought the hon. Member would have been aware.

Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I did not make myself plain. When we on this side return after the election as a Government we will introduce that Measure. I am trying to ascertain whether, when he says the Bill would fall, he thinks that that would not take place, and that the party opposite would not then introduce the Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully understand the hon. Member's apprehensions that his hon. Friends may not be here to introduce the Bill—if I may say so, that is a very sensible intervention. But the point to which I am inviting the attention of the House is that the Govern-

ment, whose supporters are now seeking to get electoral credit out of this Measure, have, in fact and in substance, dropped it, and dropped it at the end of December.
The hon. Member for Barons Court was very critical of the records of my right hon. Friends in respect of the provision of council housing. He had a great deal of fun with the subject, but he cannot get away from the fact that during a period of Conservative Governments the amount of council house building that took place was without precedent in this country—

Mr. Richard: No.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The total doubled It rose from 2·9 million in 1951—

Mr. Richard: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish the sentence before jumping to his feet as agilely as his physique permits him to do. It rose from 2·9 million in 1951 to 5·9 million—more than double—in 1964.

Mr. Richard: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; and for a remark from one who so obviously appreciates the same position, if I may say so.
Is it not the fact that council-house building under the party opposite started at a level of about 200,000 in 1951 or 1952, and dipped to a low of under 100,000? Then, though I speak from memory, from about 1961 onwards it started climbing again, but did not reach 200,000 by the date of the election.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the hon. Member's first point, I am but a humble follower of him on the weight-for-age formula. On his second point, council-house building could not have started at 200,000 when we took over, because the total of all sorts of housing completed at the time of the end of the last Labour Government was slightly under 190,000. But it is true that a large part of the very impressive figures I have mentioned were in the earlier part of the long period of history we are discussing. But the fact remains that at the end of the day there was the biggest contribution to council housing in the history of the country—from 2·9 million to 5·9 million. Therefore,


it does not lie with the hon. Member to attack us for this merely because he may happen to disagree with the order in which it was done.
I am surprised that apparently he should resent the fact that we gave first attention in large measure in our earlier years in office to increasing the total. I should have thought, despite his criticism, that this was something which even in the present atmosphere he would have been prepared to applaud.

Mr. Richard: rose—

Mr. Freeson: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) has not yet made an intervention, but his hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court has made two interventions. However, if the hon. Member for Willesden, East desires, I will give way to him.

Mr. Freeson: The top rate on council house building was reached about 1954, when the total was in the region of 250,000 houses. Two years later the then Tory Government announced the beginning of a first priority slum clearance drive. It was so described and continued to be so described, but from 1954 to 1964, in the period when it was a first priority to get rid of the worst housing, council house building dropped from 250,000 to below 100,000 and crept up to 130,000 in 1964.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his expertise, which shows that we built more council houses under the Conservative Government than a Labour Government has done or ever will. It is undoubtedly the fact that the largest part of this massive contribution was made in the earlier years of Conservative Government, when we gave priority to that particular need.
I come to one or two general comments on this subject. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was quite right when he said that housing played a large part in the last Election. I think that it will do so in the coming one, although it will be very different indeed in effect. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite raised high hopes by the pledges they gave last time, very high hopes indeed, and those pledges no doubt affected the actions of our fellow countrymen. There was the pledge of the Prime Minister to

treat housing like a military operation, as he said in his election address and in his speech at Wembley.
All that raised high hopes. It might be worth while reflecting for a moment on the extent to which those hopes have been fulfilled. The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) made a most remarkable speech, in which he warmly congratulated the Government on their housing achievement. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West, said, with perfect truth, although with some selective emphasis, that the list of completions last year was 8,000 higher than in the previous year, and the hon. Member for Battersea, South referred to the inheritance which this Government had.
Whatever the inheritance of the Government may be claimed to have been in other spheres, no one knows better than hon. Members opposite that in housing the inheritance was an extremely valuable one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) left behind not only a programme of 400,000 houses for 1965, but 434,000 houses actually under construction. All that the present Minister of Housing and Local Government could do with that inheritance was to complete 382,000. 18,000 less than my right hon. Friend's programme and 50,000 less than had been left under construction.

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Member is talking about the Conservative programme of 400,000 houses. Will he tell us where in the Conservative Party's manifesto of 1964 that figure was quoted?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It was not necessary to quote a figure in a manifesto when we left something more concrete in existence, 434,000 under construction. If, instead of engaging in manifestos, the hon. Gentleman could leave such a concrete memorial, he would be in a better position.
My right hon. Friend the then Minister made clear that our programme for 1965 was 400,000 and left this solid contribution. After all the ballyhoo and psychological warfare and the Prime Minister's talk about military operations, the party opposite completed 18,000 fewer than the number in my right hon. Friend's programme and 50,000 fewer than those left under construction, and 50,000 fewer than most people in the industry thought could be achieved. That


is the achievement on which the hon. Member for Battersea, South finds it possible to congratulate his Government.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government, in answer to a Question the other day, said that the Government would complete 400,000 houses this year, 1966. When he was asked why there should be any more likelihood—

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not in the middle of a sentence. I will give way later. We have plenty of time; we have all night.
When the right hon. Gentleman was asked why there was any more likelihood that he would complete 400,000 houses this year than there was last year, he said that he was quite sure he would. It was pointed out, and it is very significant, that starts and completions in January this year were lower than in January last year. Therefore, it is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman is starting very badly indeed.
There came further news, as no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary knows, last night from an impartial and authoritative source. A statement was put out, a routine statement on the new homes survey by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. It stated:
Home sales are still disappointing; fewer private homes are likely to be started and completed in 1966 than in 1965.
It went on to say:
The replies as a whole also pointed to fewer houses both started and completed in 1966 as compared with 1965.
I ask the House to note the final sentence:
The inquiry provides evidence, too, that since the publication of the Land Commission White Paper in September, 1965, land prices have risen and that less land is available for private house-building.
We therefore start this year, not only with the disappointing record of last year, not only with the Minister's failure last year, but with every indication that that failure is to be repeated this year, and the further complication to which the building trades employers have drawn attention, of the folly of the Minister of Land and Natural Resources in persisting with a proposal to apply his Measure, if

it ever comes forward, retrospectively to last September. Anyone who knows this industry knows how vital is the supply of land for building if there is to be any success with the housing programme and what a discouraging effect the bringing forward of this Measure will have on the bringing forward of land for development.
I am glad to see one consolation in the Labour Party manifesto, which says that if the Labour Party is returned it proposes to abolish the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. Probably in his heart the Parliamentary Secretary shares my view that that is the most encouraging thing in the whole of that rather curious document.
Reference has been made by some hon. Members to the vexed question of mortgages. Again, hon. Members spoke as though something had been done, but, in fact, there has been only an announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, only the giving of another pledge. I am bound to say that a pledge is not redeemed just by giving another. Indeed, the failure to implement the first raises natural doubts about the second.
We know that even since this announcement the building societies have publicly expressed doubts about the workability of these proposals, which the Chancellor admitted had not been discussed with them. It becomes perfectly clear—and this, too, may be very discouraging for hon. Members opposite who are relying on it—that this announcement by the Chancellor was no more than an electoral gimmick, was not a properly worked-out proposal and was a pledge even vaguer and even less reliable than the original pledge given with happy ebullience by the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State at the last election.
All we have is the fact that for nearly a year mortgage interests rates by building societies have been at 6¾ per cent., the highest in our history, and local authority mortgages, if one could get them, at 7 or 7¼ per cent. Those are the facts, despite all the fine words and fine pledges of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and despite all the optimism about it which they have expressed today. It has been made worse for the person who wants to buy a house by the fact that house prices rose last year by the unprecedented amount of 7½ per cent.


—and those are official figures. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shocking."] The hon. Gentleman says "shocking", and it is shocking for someone who wants to buy a house and who finds that, despite Labour Party pledges, he has to pay 6¾ per cent. on his mortgage and that he has to raise a mortgage higher by that amount than ever before.
This is a poor story, this story of Labour Party housing performance in this Parliament. I am a little surprised by the complacency of hon. Members opposite who have spoken in the debate. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West was absolutely right when he said that at the last election housing played a very considerable part. High hopes were raised. High expectations were deliberately created. But the facts—not the further promises, the further pledges, the White Papers, the gimmicks, the statements at the Dispatch Box, but the facts—are the failure to achieve my right hon. Friend's total, the failure to carry out the pledge on mortgages, the rising prices. They mean that the housing problems of our people are now worse as a result of Labour party policy.
Those are the solid facts which are not obscured by statements about future pledges or promises. They are the facts on which our fellow countrymen will judge.

6.33 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): It is fair to say that during the next three weeks housing will be one of the main topics which will be debated throughout the nation. I, for one, with special responsibility in this Ministry, am looking forward to those debates.
I start with the one simple fact that we shall lay before the people and ask them for no more than a fair judgment on it. It is that on the day we took office we were confronted with the fact that there were literally untold thousands of our people who were suffering from insecurity of tenure of their accommodation, an insecurity brought about by the 1957 Rent Act which was imposed by hon. Members opposite and which they themselves had made no attempt to amend although they knew that hardships were being created.
One of the first things we had to do was to introduce emergency legislation to give protection and security of tenure to our people. When we came into office and announced in the Gracious Speech that we were to repeal the infamous Tory Rent Act, 1957, overnight thousands of people in London alone received notices to quit. The first legislation we introduced therefore, was emergency legislation to give security of tenure.
We followed it with our Rent Act. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who, I should have thought, would know a great deal about these matters, said that it was the Labour Government which created the situation which led to a shortage of rented accommodation in the great conurbations. I have never heard anything so foolish in my life. If he believes that it was the Labour Party attitude on this issue which created the shortage, he does not know what sort of world we are living in, because the whole purpose of the 1957 Rent Act was to create more rented accommodation. In fact, it achieved exactly the opposite and throughout that period more than 1 million properties which had previously been rented went off the market.

Mr. Costain: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I said that it was the Labour Opposition, not the Labour Government. Surely he appreciates that it was because of the threats to landlords that these premises were sold. It was pointed out during the passage of that Rent Act that unless we could get some security, new houses to let would not be built. That was the point which I was making.

Mr. Mellish: I do not deny that from 1957 onwards it was recognised by the country as a whole that the days of Conservative Government were numbered. There is no doubt that people recognised that a Labour Government was inevitable. We shall have this row throughout the country, but there is no doubt in my mind that by removing the 1957 Rent Act we have given people the sort of security of tenure which they have the right to expect.
We brought in a Rent Act of our own. I do not have the figures, and I did not intend to get them, of what


rent officers are doing at the moment. We decided as a matter of policy that we should leave them alone and let them get on with their job, because their work is in its very early stages. Some of my hon. Friends have quite properly spoken from their own local knowledge of what has been happening to rents in their areas. From the information they have given it is clear that the tendency in the vast majority of cases has been for the very high rents to be reduced to proper proportions.
It is interesting to note that some rents have gone up. One of the things which the Labour Rent Act has done is to promote a different relationship between landlord and tenant. For the first time, landlords are now coming forward without holding the threat of eviction against the tenant and recognising that the tenants have some rights. As a consequence, there is a different relationship, and I hope and believe that many thousands of tenants who would have had to go to the rent officer will not have to do so because they will be able to settle a fair rent with the landlords themselves. I am advised by many of those in authority that the relationship between landlord and tenant is better than ever before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who initiated the debate, began his speech by talking about the Rent Act. I have to tell him that we have not fixed a date when the rent assessments committee will start to operate in Nottingham, but I can give him the assurance that it will be in the very near future. The area covered will be Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Rutland and Northamptonshire and the headquarters will be at Nottingham. We have already appointed a president and vice-president and the committee will be starting in a matter of a few weeks. A rent officer service has already been arranged and will be largely staffed by appointments made by the county clerks.
My hon. Friend spoke about getting rid of much of the bad property in Nottingham. What he said applies to all the areas which have this appalling problem of slums. I can tell the right hon.

Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that when I took office in October, 1964, with special responsibility for Greater London, we asked our civil servants to brief us on what the problems were. I give this information to the House to put the problems of Nottingham into their right perspective. I was told that there were 200,000 families without homes of their own, that there were thousands of slums and that I had to find homes for one million Londoners outside London by 1981. Whatever else the right hon. Gentleman may say, he left us that legacy and it had to be dealt with. We inherited that.
When we considered the problems of slums in the Nottinghams and the Manchester and the Liverpools, it became obvious that we had to give the local authorities special incentives to deal with them. That is why when we introduced our subsidies we decided to give the sort of subsidies which would not only encourage local authorities to go on building in future, but would make some recognition of the past efforts of some authorities with special problems.
My right hon. Friend selected about 135 high priority authorities with a special slum or over-crowding problem. To these authorities an even stronger yardstick was applied to ascertain whether there should be special attention given to them in our new subsidy proposals for houses completed after 23rd November. The first list has been announced. It does not at the moment include Nottingham. I cannot guarantee that it will. It certainly includes the whole of the inner London area, Manchester, Liverpool—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would help the reporters if the hon. Gentleman would turn to the Chair.

Mr. Mellish: It certainly includes Manchester, Liverpool and areas of that kind and inner London, because these are those which, when the yardstick is applied, show enormous slums and problems of overcrowding. These will, therefore, receive a subsidy for everything that they now have in the pipeline. This finance will mean an enormous help to them, but it does not mean that my right hon. Friend rules out any other authorities. A case will have to be made out. I hope that when we return as the Government the case will be made out


adequately and well by the Nottingham authority and others who desire this subsidy. Those cases will be considered on their merits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batter-sea, South (Mr. Perry) spoke about railway land. This was a legacy left to us. In many instances the land was being sold to the highest bidder. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames might take note of this. Defence land was being sold to the highest bidder. I had not been in office five minutes when I was asked to give authority for a firm of auctioneers to sell defence land which had become available. My right hon. Friend, acting on my advice, stopped this sale of land. We made sure that it went to the local authority which happened to be Conservative-controlled—and this shows my great impartiality in these matters—to build houses for the people on its waiting lists.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will not the hon. Gentleman accept that the biggest and best area of housing land in London was the Woolwich Arsenal site, which was made available for housing by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), and that its use for housing was delayed by the efforts of the former Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy?

Mr. Mellish: That is not true as far as the completion of the Woolwich Arsenal site is concerned. The responsibility is that of my hon. Friend. We have debated this subject in the House and the right hon. Gentleman has not raised that point before. I gather that 31st March may tend to influence him to make all sorts of statements against the present Government.
The record of the present Government in the matter of Woolwich is first-class. We are building the first 1,000 houses on the site this year. I must say with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman that a great deal of the land there had to be forced out of the Ministry concerned. We had no easy task in doing that because of the legacy left us by the previous Administration, whereby all defence land went, if possible, to the highest bidder. This is something which we have stopped.
As for railway land, we have ensured that such land in the London area will

be first offered to the Greater London Council which, in its turn, must consult the local authority to see how, with the G.L.C., it can make the best use of it. If my hon. Friend has problems about certain pieces of railway land I will see that they are dealt with.
There is a great deal of empty property in London and absentee landlords get away without paying rates. This is a matter with which we shall deal. There is nothing to stop a local authority putting a compulsory purchase order on empty property if it is bothered about such a house.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) referred to a vast redevelopment—the Wood Lane scheme—which is being proposed. It has not yet been finalised. My right hon. Friend may have to act as arbiter and, therefore, I do not want to commit him in detail. I cannot deny that this is a brilliant scheme in outline, in the sense that it has proposals for rehousing people in this very congested part of London. It is a tremendous credit to the local authority which is promoting it. If local authorities in London are to be of a size of 320,000 people, this is the sort of scheme which could justify such a size. It is ambitious although, I am told, very expensive. I shall help the authority to the best of my ability to ensure that it is achieved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to industrialised buildings. He will know that no Government has done more than we have done in trying to encourage this throughout local authority areas. We have insisted that a percentage of all tenders submitted to us shall have an industrialised building content, and we hope that by 1970 40 per cent. of all local authority building will be achieved by industrialised methods.
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe ought to know better, as the holder of a famous name in the building industry. He should know that 500,000 houses a year under a Labour or a Tory Government are not possible with the present building labour force. This is confirmed by people in the building industry. This is why it is so important for all local authorities and for private enterprise everywhere to


understand that they must turn more and more to industrialised building. I hope that 500,000 houses when achieved will not be the end of the story but the beginning of even further effort in this country.

Mr. Costain: I never said that 500,000 would be built by traditional methods. A certain amount of industrialised methods will be needed. The hon. Gentleman knows that I said that and he must not misquote me.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman had better read his speech. I understood him to say that to private enterprise the sky is the limit and that it could build anything. I say that the industry, whether building for local authorities or for private occupation, could not achieve the sort of targets that we and the party opposite are talking about when we refer to half-a-million houses unless there can be extensive industrialised building.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) spoke about rents of council houses. This matter causes tremendous bother inside and outside London. He will understand that we cannot do anything about the past inheritance of high interest rates charged to local authorities, which put their housing accounts in such a bad way. It is our responsibility to do something about the future. My hon. Friend's borough will qualify for the increased subsidy on all its houses in the pipeline. It would be a good exercise for him and other hon. Members representing London constituencies to ask their local authorities what the receiving of this subsidy for all houses now in the pipeline means to them.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I want to make it clear that the reproach which I was laying was certainly not against my hon. Friend or my right hon. Friend, but against their predecessors, who created a situation which my hon. and right hon. Friends are having to try to cure.

Mr. Mellish: I was trying to back my hon. Friend by saying much the same thing.
I say, through my hon. Friend, to those in London whose rents have gone up, in some instances by a tremendous figure, that this is due to a large measure to the high interest rates which progressive local

authorities had to bear. The more progressive the local authority the greater the burden placed on its back. The result has been that rents have gone up more and more for those living in council houses in order to pay for new houses to come. It is our intention to ensure that the more progressive the authority the greater the subsidy will be. This is the future which I can offer to my hon. Friend and others in London who have this problem of increased council house rents.
We on this side of the House have been challenged on our housing record. This whole subject will, of course, be debated throughout the election campaign. I want now to give some figures which are not in dispute. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames is quite right to say that there were 434,000 houses under construction on 1st January, 1965. His Government can take some credit for that, because they were in power until the previous October. It is true, also, that, at the end of 1965, we had completed 382,000 houses, that is. 8,000 more than were completed the year before by the previous Tory Government.
But it is fair to say—these are the facts—that 1965 was the best year for house building since the war. I have said that 434,000 houses were under construction on 1st January, 1965. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be too distressed when I tell him that the number under construction on 1st January, 1966, was 444,000, that is 10,000 more. This is one legacy which the present Government will be leaving, greatly to their credit. Moreover, the figures available to us show that there has been a great increase in the public authority sector.
I am sure that there will be unanimity on both sides of the House in agreeing that the public authorities are the only people who can deal with slums. No one will do it, but them. I am delighted to tell the House that throughout the whole country there is an upsurge of local authority building, with a tremendous increase in the use of industrialised systems, which means that more houses will be completed that much faster. We all know that houses under construction are one thing, but actual completions are quite another.
Therefore, I go into this election—I hope that I carry all my hon. Friends with me in this—asking for no more than that our housing record will be compared with the record of the party opposite on the basis of what we have done for those who were in greatest need and those who were suffering the effects of the Tory Government's Rent Act. I want the country to look at the number of houses which we have built, the efforts we have made and are making to ensure that we achieve our realistic target of 500,000 houses by 1970, and our determination to do what is necessary for the people in greatest need. I ask no more than that the country pass its judgment on that.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) seems to be trying to catch my eye. He will succeed at this stage only if he indicates to the Chair, as every hon. Member has had the prudence to do, the topic he wishes to talk about. Otherwise, he is precluding someone else from his proper place in the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to talk about housing?

Mr. Frank Allaun: Just for two minutes, Mr. Speaker, yes.

Mr. Speaker: I hone that the House will understand that I am calling these debates in order in which notice was given. I am not calling vet any hon. Member who seeks to catch my eye in order to raise, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, any other subject.

Mr. Allaun: I am most indebted to you, Mr. Speaker, and I assure you that I shall not detain the House for more than two minutes. I have some facts which I think will be of interest.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not questioning how long the hon. Gentleman speaks. I was indicating the method by which hon. Gentlemen indicate to the Chair in which debate they wish to speak.

Mr. Allaun: The fault was mine, Mr. Speaker. I should have intervened earlier in the debate before the two winding-up speeches, and I apologise sincerely for not having done so. I am grateful for

the privilege which you are now granting me.
A fortnight ago, the Minister was good enough to give me some figures about rent reductions, and this afternoon he was good enough again to give me figures right up to date which are even more striking. Up to last Friday, 5th March, rent officers in London had received 5,053 applications, of which they had determined 693. Of the 693 cases, 528 resulted in reductions in rent, there were increases in 99, and there was no change in 66.
There have been even more dramatic results. A fortnight ago, I mentioned a house the rent of which had been reduced by £3 12s. I am very pleased to say that, after telephoning to the rent officers, I find that there is a house in the Borough of Brent for which a rent of 11 guineas a week, including 16s. rates, was being paid, and that this rent has now been reduced to £6 1s. a week, including 16s. rates. That is a reduction of £5 10s. It is a terrace house, one of seven in a row, with a living room and with two bedrooms on the first floor.
I think that, when this kind of reduction becomes well known, there will be a flood of applicants for rent reductions. It is interesting to note that, last week, 56 tenants who had applied for rent reductions withdrew their applications, apparently because the landlords had been to them and said, "I will offer you so much if you do not pursue the case". When this process spreads in other areas such as Hackney, which has had the largest number of applications of all London boroughs and where, in some cases, tenants are paying for a basement dwelling £6 10s. a week, we can expect some dramatic reductions.
Although the pattern in the rest of the country may not be followed exactly, as rents are so much lower in the provinces in any case, people in the provinces also will be able to look forward to considerable reductions, in most cases, on what they are now paying.
This is an actual achievement of the Labour Government, not something for the future. It is the result of the Labour Government's Rent Act which has done something effective to undo the injustices created by the Tory Government's Rent Act.

Mr. Richard: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the figures which I gave tentatively in regard to a rent of £19 a week for a house in Hammersmith reduced to £6 a week represent the true position there?

Mr. Allaun: In fact, my hon. Friend has understated the case. The reduction was from £19 to £5 10s. a week. The landlord offered a rent of £13, but this was not considered a sufficient reduction, and it was, in fact, reduced to £5 10s. It is a three-storey house not sublet but tenanted by one family, a father and mother, six children, and two sisters.

Orders of the Day — COMMUTERS (TRANSPORT)

6.57 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I now ask the House to leave the important subject of housing and turn its attention to what, I think, is an equally important topic, namely, the commuter problem, which, indeed, has some relevance also to the problem of housing.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that you gave evidence to the Select Committee on procedure about the importance to backbench Members of this day in the year and the occasions when it arises. I entirely share your view on that subject, Mr. Speaker, because it is—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may pray my aid on Parliamentary procedure, but not on what he is about to say about commuters.

Mr. Channon: Only on Parliamentary procedure, Sir. Perhaps on another occasion, privately, I may be able to tell you my views on the commuter problem.
I shall refer to the commuter problem from two points of view, first, in so far as it affects my own constituency of Southend, West, and, second, as a general and wider problem. I agree with some of the observations of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) when, speaking in the earlier debate on housing, he made some pertinent points which are of relevance to the commuter areas.
The commuter problem has now become world-wide, but it is probably at its worst in London, although, of course, New York has great troubles, too. I have tried to discover the number of people

who commute daily in and out of London. My figures may be a little out of date and, if they are, the Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt give me more up to date figures. As far as I am aware, the number of passengers entering Central London daily between the hours of 7 and 10 a.m. on a weekday morning reaches the staggering total of 1,238,000. Of those, 900,000 come in by rail and 338,000 by road.
I am most grateful to the Library for providing me with so much statistical information at very short notice. I am quoting from the London Traffic Survey of July 1964, published by the Greater London Council. The House will be aware of the very large numbers of people commuting into London, though I recognise that other great cities in the country have the same problem, but not to the same extent.
I should like to inquire how the Government view this enormous problem, which is tied up with the future of London, the future of the new towns and the future of new population centres. A large number of hon. Members are interested in the topic. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and many others have been deeply concerned with it. I think that at the beginning the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree that we must face the facts and that the journey to London has become intolerable for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people. There is little doubt that unless drastic action is taken the problem will get worse and not better.
I turn for a few moments to the special problem of the Southend area. We have many thousands of people who commute to London by train. We have two particular complaints which I shall put to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. Some of these things he may feel are more the responsibility of British Railways, but some are directly his responsibility, and no doubt he will give consideration to them. He will know that as the law stands the Transport Tribunal has authority to deal with fares only in Inner London and has no power to control fares outside the London area. This raises particular problems for those


who live in Southend and other places nearby.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) knows a great deal about this, too. In the past, Southend has frequently been treated as part of the London area, but at the end of 1964 and early in 1965, when it happened to suit British Railways—it was unable to get increases in fares in the London area because the Transport Tribunal turned down its application—Southend was treated as being outside the London area and its fares were increased.
The reason for this is partly historical. Although Southend has, technically, always been outside the London area for travel purposes, it has for many years, until recently, been treated as part of it, but since it was not actually part of it, it was possible for British Railways, when it suited it, to treat it as if it were outside it. This made my constituents feel very aggrieved since they were getting the worst of both worlds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East attempted to persuade the then Minister of Transport to exercise his power under Section 27 of the Transport Act, 1962, to give a direction of general character to British Railways not to make the increases. Unfortunately, the Minister of the day did not feel inclined to do so. He was, however, courteous enough to receive a deputation from hon. Members from Essex and Kent constituencies, and saw it on 12th April, 1965. I have here the Press notice issued after the meeting. The Minister pointed out that there could be no immediate change in the basis of fares policy, but he assured the deputation that the problem of London commuter travel, including the present definition of the London Passenger Transport Area, would be among those taken into account in assessing the results of the transport co-ordination study then under way. I do not think that the House would expect me to go into details about what has happened to that study, but perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will tell us, as it affects commuters and as it affected that deputation, exactly what the position is and what it is likely to be.
The real reason for the grievance of my constituents over many years in this

matter is historical. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has pointed out that British Railways for many years encouraged people to move out to Essex in general and Southend in particular. They were told that they would have cheaper fares if they did so. For a long time they did. But it is not surprising that many of those people who have lived in the area for a long period now feel themselves deluded by what has happened.
I turn from the fares problem, which is always the most important problem for the commuter to London, to another problem, which, I am glad to say, is no longer as serious as it was last year. This is a problem of which I have not been able to give the Joint Parliamentary Secretary notice, and so he may not be able to answer me tonight. If so, perhaps he will write to me later or in some other manner make the information public. I refer to the terrible spate of vandalism on the railways which occurred for a brief period—not all that brief, I am afraid—in late 1964 and early 1965. Hon. Members may remember having seen published in the Daily Mail on 9th April last a list of the incidents which had taken place on the Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street line in March 1965.
The House may wonder why I have not raised the matter previously. It was my view, and I think it was the view of the Ministry of Transport and the Home Office, that the more publicity this terrible vandalism had at the time the more likely it was to encourage people to continue to commit such appalling acts, rather in the same way as I suspect at the moment the more publicity we give to the damaging of telephone kiosks the more likely is that damage to continue. For some extraordinary reason, waves of these events seem to occur in different spheres of activity from time to time.
Vandalism on the railways is no longer the problem it was, I trust, but perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can tell us what steps have been taken in the past year to improve safety on British Railways, the safety of the engine drivers and people who work on the trains and the people who travel on the trains. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also interest himself in the very important problem of compensation for those who


have been injured and the widows of those who have lost their lives in the terrible accidents caused in this way. I am sure that British Railways would always wish to do this, but it is the Minister's duty to ensure that the nationalised industries behave with generosity and decency towards people concerned in such accidents.
Before I deal with the wider aspects, I would make one or two other brief points about Essex and Southend, and I hope that the Minister, if he cannot answer me tonight, will give consideration to them. We have always heard—it has always been the case—that British Railways loses a large amount of money each year on its commuting services. It is alleged to be about £20 million a year. I have the gravest doubt whether this is applicable to the Southend line. It has an extremely large off-peak service and a very large and growing freight service, and I very much doubt that the line loses money. I do not see why hon. Members cannot be told which lines are losing money, which lines are breaking even and which lines are making money. Then we should be able to judge the justice of the British Railways policy much better in that light.
My second point is that for some time there has been a shortage of rolling stock in the Eastern Region. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and I had the pleasure of joining with the Southend Railway Travellers Association—of which we are joint presidents—and its chairman and secretary in an extremely useful meeting with the chairman of the Eastern Region and its general manager a few months ago, when this was among the topics raised. This is an example of how these problems can be tackled usefully with benefit to all. If the shortage of rolling stock and the existing delays on the Southend line continue, I hope that the rolling stock problem will be urgently re-examined.
My final point in this connection is that I hope that the Minister will also consider what has been a problem for many years, and that is the lack of a railway station at Southend Airport. This is an important matter for the many thousands of people who use the airport. I appreciate that this might be bound up with the decision, which is

soon to be made, about a third London airport. Perhaps that is why progress cannot be made at the moment. I hope, however, that this will also be considered.
I turn to the more general problem of the commuter, who, at the latest available figures, exists 1,238,000 strong all round London. What do the Government propose to do, both in the short term and in the long term? I am particularly glad that the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) is present, because he will recall our discussions last year during the passage of the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act. Although it is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, I should like to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary when we are to have the annual report, which the President of the Board of Trade is by statute required to make, about the working of that Act. It is of extreme relevance to the commuter problem.
It will be readily appreciated that the problem of those who travel to Central London cannot be eased unless alternative employment can be provided nearer their homes. This point was made in the housing debate earlier this afternoon by the hon. Member for Putney.
What concerned hon. Members during the passage of the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act was that at a certain stage of the proceedings the President of the Board of Trade said that in general he would consider all proposals from the Greater London area similarly on merit, whereas some of my hon. Friends and I contended that to stop the great flow of traffic into the centre of London it is essential that the outer areas, which are technically part of the London Region from the standpoint of the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act, must be able nevertheless to provide office accommodation and employment so that people will not have to come and work in London. I have no complaint in this regard concerning Southend, where excellent office accommodation is available, but it would be helpful to the House to know what has been the policy of the President of the Board of Trade in the outer Metropolitan region since the passing of the Act.
I should like to know how the Government view the future of the commuting problem. It seems to me to be obvious


that if we cannot get decent public transport and tolerable conditions for people coming into London—I have no complaint to make about the standard of services of the Eastern Region, which in general provides an excellent and speedy service for people from my part of the world—we are bound to have a still further growth of cars coming into London. This is extremely unfortunate.
It is difficult to get an up-to-date figure of the number of vehicles in use on the roads. The latest figure which I can get shows that 13 million motor vehicles are in use, of which just under 9 million are cars. This compares with only 5 million cars as recently as 1959. Thus the number of cars coming on to the roads is enormous.
The number of people coming into London by road each weekday is put at 338,000, which is a very large number. The number of road vehicles entering the central area during the morning peak has risen during the last ten years by 29,100, or 44 per cent. It is, alas, true that the number of passengers in each vehicle has decreased by about 10 per cent. The volume of commuting by car and scooter has doubled over the last decade. We were told this by the South East Study.
The average annual rate of increase in the number of passengers carried into central London by. London Transport over the last five years has been 20,000. The corresponding figure for the railway services is 22,000. The South-East Study pointed out that by 1971 we must expect no less than 200,000 more commuters coming into London than we have today. That is an enormous problem in itself. What will happen to those 200,000 extra people who come into London by 1971? Do the Government accept this figure? If so, what extra facilities will the Government provide for them?
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will recall what the South-East Study said about this. It said that given certain factors, including the necessary capital investment, it would be possible very largely to increase the capacity. It would mean a considerable change in the pattern of services. If this were to be done, however, it might be possible for the transport services to accommodate perhaps even as many as 450,000 extra peak-hour commuters. That would need £100 million

additional investment, £30 million of which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) will know, would be attributable to the Southern Region. The cost to London Transport would be even heavier.
The Victoria Line is an extremely costly project. Nevertheless, I must ask the House to consider whether it is not essential for the Government—a Conservative Government I hope, but whichever party is in power—seriously to consider the future of the Underground in Greater London. I suspect that it will be essential to increase the Underground system.
If the housing problem, the jobs problem and the problem of people travelling into London every day are to be solved, energetic action needs urgently to be taken on the railways and on the roads as well as with cars. I hope that tonight the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able not only to deal with some of the points which I have raised concerning my constituency, but will be able to tell us a little about the future and how the Government envisage that these enormous numbers of people are to be transported at reasonable cost, with safety and in reasonable comfort from their places of work to their homes.
This will be one of the great challenges that will confront whichever Government is in office during the last years of this decade. Already the situation is getting extremely serious. If an additional 200,000 people are to commute into London by 1971, I suggest that the time is ripe for really urgent action. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us about this tonight.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) attempting to catch my eye. Does he wish to take part in the general debate, or in the debate on the commuter services?

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, to take part in the debate on the commuter services.

Mr. Speaker: As I pointed out earlier, it would help the Chair if the Chair knew which hon. Members wished to take part in the respective debates which are taking place on the Consolidated Fund Bill, because the topics are listed in order


and hon. Members who wish to take part in the general debate would come at the bottom of the queue.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I am sure that the House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has done well to raise this subject tonight. Although we are glad to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary present, we need not apologise to him for taking up his time, whatever discomfort we cause ourselves tonight, because whatever time we lose will probably be less than most commuters suffer every day of their lives.
I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend said about services in the Eastern Region. During the course of my investigation into the problem of the commuter, I had reason to pay a visit to Liverpool Street a short time ago. I was rather impressed by the services which are provided for my hon. Friend's constituents and for others who travel in the east and north-east directions from London. I will not make invidious comparisons, but I could.
What we are really discussing tonight is not only the comfort of a very large number of people, but, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, efficiency as well. The way we enable enormous numbers of people to move in and out of London daily with reasonable dispatch has an incalculable effect on business and industry and the way in which people go about their daily lives. Conditions are now bad, and on what my hon. Friend said, and on what we know of the facts, I cannot see how they can avoid becoming worse.
I think that my hon. Friend's figures are right, that 330,000 come in and go out of London, nearly always within 90 minutes in the morning and 90 minutes in the evening, and I think that he is right in saying that about 200,000 is the calculated increase, according to the South-East Study during the years 1961–81. Can the Parliamentary Secretary guide us here? Are we getting up-to-date information on this figure, which really is a very important figure, of the population trend, which may decrease or perhaps increase on this original estimate of 200,000?
Certainly, I judge that there is no lack of bodies available to investigate this sort of thing. I calculate that there are six in existence. I will not enumerate them all. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will know them better than I do. Are these bodies setting about in the right way the problem of keeping up to date with the population trend as they will affect the number of commuters entering London?
From this present commuter situation two trends seem to be developing. The first is that more and more people come from farther and farther out. The second is that they are increasingly moving from the buses and the railways into their own private cars. Some recently published figures which, I think, are authentic establish this point very clearly. Last year—1965—the daily passenger traffic into central London was 4,900 buses and coaches, one-quarter less than a decade ago, and 68,000 private cars. These buses and coaches carry on average 191,000 passengers, a very small proportion of the total.
To put these figures another way, the peak morning traffic consisted as to 8 per cent. of buses carrying 66 per cent. of the road passengers and as to 68 per cent. private cars carrying 24 per cent. of the road passengers. Of course, we are approaching a ludicrous state of affairs when private cars account for four-fifths of the traffic while carrying one-third of the total number of passengers and when public transport does it the other way round.
This brings me to the point I want to make about communications, the desirability of achieving by every means a switch from private cars to public transport. I think that this will be agreed policy some time. We must reduce the number of private cars and increase public transport. Are we poised to do this? I will come back in a moment to the investment which may be involved, but immediately there are one or two intermediate problems I want to touch on.
First, the parking of cars at stations, or at the points at which the commuter, if he is a good citizen, will leave his car and proceed by public transport. The other day the Evening News conducted a considerable survey of the railway stations all the way round London


and the capacity of their car parks, and the question not unfairly asked was:
What inducement is the car commuter being offered to leave his vehicle behind and hop on a train instead?
A very relevant question, and the conclusion reached, in what was clearly a very thoughtful study, a detailed survey stretching from the Home Counties to the suburbs, shows that
railway land becoming available is considered by the regions as the only solution to any demand for increased car parking at stations
and it goes on to say that
some regions have no plans whatever for increasing their parking facilities.
While London Transport are romping ahead the railway regions are doing very little if anything for the car commuter. This is crucial, because if we want people to leave their cars and proceed by public transport there must be places where they can park their cars.
It leads to another crucial question. What is the land problem? Can the railways acquire land and keep it for parking? How are they advised to use it? Is it done in conjunction with local authorities or by themselves? Have they power to get land? Have they power to invest in car parking? I will not go into the question of vertical parking, but, of course, travellers want to be able to park their cars quickly and to be able to get them out of the parks quickly. What is the background for the railways, because this is a major consideration in considering the figure of 200,000 prospective increase in population during the next 17 years.

Mr. Channon: Will my right hon. Friend permit me? I think that the figure is worse. It is by 1971, not 1981.

Mr. Deedes: By 1971. My hon. Friend is quite right. It is a figure of 200,000 which may be reached by then, but, of course, it may not be reached.
We know that the Minister of Housing and Local Government wants to decant something like 1 million people from London as soon as he possibly can. The South-East Study also indicates that there will be an increase in our population in this region of about 2·9 million. Consider that figure for a moment. How many of those people will be commuters? We have no idea. My impression is that they

will be a considerably higher proportion than they are of the populations of the new towns already established, partly because rail communications are better, partly because there is an urge to go and live in the country, partly because there is an increase in offices as opposed to industry in London and offices attract a population more inclined to travel to and from work.
There seem to be two major alternatives. One is to steer the new population where transport facilities are best and to do that by planning decision. That is one possibility. The other is to give public transport—the railways, the Underground—a forecast, some idea, of where the population will be and to give them the right of investment in order that they may be prepared for the demand. One thing which is quite certain is that the new centres which have been designated by the Minister of Housing and Local Government within 70 to 80 miles of London—that is the commuter range today—will enormously increase the number of people who may wish to come in over the next 10 to 15 years.
What I am always troubled about is whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the plans of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, those of the local authorities concerned, and the projects of British Railways and others who must handle the resulting demand. I really doubt whether by planning decisions it will be possible to steer the population where transport facilities are best—that is to say, to describe my hon. Friend's Eastern Region as the best of the regions, the region with most capacity, and, therefore, to say that more people should go to live on that part of the coast. I do not believe that it is "on" in its terms of planning decisions.
Therefore, the point is, what are we doing about the second of the alternatives? How far are we enabling the railways to anticipate the demand which will be made upon them? Because in so far as commuters suffer acute discomfort today in their journeys to and from London it is because—this is not a party point, and we on this side are as much to blame as anybody else—we have not anticipated the demand made on the communications which they have to use.
It is true that the railways still have spare capacity, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will treat that with great reserve. That spare capacity is something which is not to be relied on very heavily. Constantly it means extending platforms by inordinate lengths and it means putting in such a large number of trains that capacity becomes the enemy of punctuality. At the peak hours, it only requires one train to get out of line and everyone is late. Spare capacity is something to be treated with great reserve.
I come, then, to consider the kinds of developments that are going through the minds of those who have to think about the topic. Should it be overhead, surface or underground? Do we know the relative financial values of each of the three methods? In respect of all three, what resources have we? I have the impression, for example, that the building of the Victoria underground line is, to a degree, handicapped by the fact that we have not built undergrounds for a long time and we have not as much skilled tunnelling manpower as we require. I think that London Transport would confirm that. What are our resources for producing the new systems that there must be, and what can we offer?
I hope we shall not hear that staggering hours can make much of a contribution, because in my opinion that is a dead duck.
Thinking five years ahead, has any consideration been given to the best shapes and interior arrangements of rolling stock to offer the commuter? Most of our railway carriage design has not changed since 1840. I saw a new bus this morning advertising the presence of the right hon. Lady the Minister of Transport, and I wonder if that sort of approach is possible on the railways.
The subject of fares has been dealt with by my hon. Friend.
We are dealing with the biggest concentration of people anywhere in Europe. There is no greater concentration than that 50 miles round London. I calculate that 150 hon. Members are involved in the commuting problems of London, let alone other cities. It is convenient to blame the railways, and that is what the commuters always do, but it is not always

the fault of the railways. Too often Ministries propose and the railways have to dispose, and it is time that we took our own duties a little more seriously. We should anticipate requirements more eagerly than we have done so far and give the railways a better chance of meeting them.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), with whom I share a line. There have been occasions when I have accompanied him in the same carriage. I am sure he will agree with me that if one is further out of London one travels in comparative comfort. One has corridor trains and a far greater proportion of non-stop services than those of us who live much closer in.
There can hardly be an out-of-London centre where travel has to be endured in greater discomfort than from Orpington to Charing Cross, Cannon Street and, to a slightly lesser extent, Victoria. I am continually receiving letters from my constituents about it, as both the Minister and British Railways know. In spite of the fact that they are very helpful in trying to deal with queries, nothing seems to happen.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that what we need is a shift from private cars to public transport, but I cannot see that happening as long as public transport is so uncomfortable. There must be some incentive for people to use public transport rather than their private motor cars, otherwise the kind of growth that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) talked about in the use of private cars will continue.
Another factor of great importance which he might have mentioned is that the marginal cost of travel by a private motor car is less than the day return fare from any station that one likes to name. If I come here in my mini-van, the cost of the petrol and oil used is much less than the cost of a return journey by British Railways. I have not worked it out on the cost of a season ticket, but, with a small car, it would still be more economical by private car than by public transport.

Sir Douglas Glover: Is the hon. Gentleman taking into account the actual value and depreciation of the car


and not just the oil and petrol that he uses on the journey?

Mr. Lubbock: I am using the marginal cost of the journey, because I think, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, that most people reason that if they have a car anyway they might as well recover depreciation and insurance over the maximum number of miles, and, therefore, in doing the equation they do not include any cost for that whatever.
That is why we have to have a long and hard look at the fares policy, and that must be done not only by British Railways themselves but also by the Government. They must ask themselves if it is right to impose the duty on British Railways always to make a profit on whatever services they run, or might there be other social benefit reasons for subsidy of certain services. We have already had total social benefit studies in the case of the Victoria Line, and I thought that it had been established as a principle in the Ministry of Transport that, provided a profit could be shown on total social benefit subsidy analysis, it was worth while proceeding with investment, even though in this case the London Transport Board will incur a loss. But when it is suggested to British Railways that certain improvements should be made, they say that they have an obligation to pay their way on the capital invested by the State and that, as long as that duty is imposed upon them, they cannot be expected to make those improvements. But even within the existing fares structure there is a certain amount that could be done.
I quite agree with the hon. Member for Southend, West that we have never seen any separate figures for the suburban services, and I am not convinced that the enormous losses which British Railways say they make on suburban services are true. Why is it so difficult for them to produce figures showing separate accounting for the suburban services? Other nationalised industries manage to do it. B.O.A.C., for example, can tell separately how much profit or loss it makes on its eastern, western or southern routes, and it would not be a difficult accounting problem for British Railways to show separate accounts for the different parts of their services.
The right hon. Member for Ashford said one thing with which I disagree. He said that one could not expect much from the staggering of hours. British Railways are to blame in their fares policy to some extent, because there is virtually no encouragement for people to travel out of peak hours since they have altered their fares policy in that respect. Neither has there been much of a campaign by British Railways in recent years to persuade people to stagger hours. It might be time to return to that and see whether, by means of a selective publicity campaign, we could not take some pressure off the peak load.
The Government could show an example by staggering hours in some of their offices. I appreciate that it is a difficult problem and that there are certain people who have to be in Greater London during the peak working hours of those with whom they have to deal. But there must be an enormous number of typists and clerical workers who could travel at hours outside the two main peaks. If the right hon. Gentleman has talked to British Railways about it, he will appreciate that the main peaks are extremely narrow, and there would be some benefit to passengers during those periods even by a shift as small as half or three-quarters of an hour one way or the other.

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Gentleman knows a good deal about modern industry, but does he know of any modern, efficient firm which has succeeded in staggering hours to any degree?

Mr. Lubbock: I think that British Railways themselves are very disappointed with the success of their publicity campaigns on staggered hours in the past. As the right hon. Gentleman says, it is true that no big firm has actually moved the whole of its work force out of the peak hours in terms of arrival and departure times.
What I am suggesting is something rather more modest than that, that we should see whether certain clerical workers, copy typists and so on, whose hours of work do not necessarily have to correspond with those of everybody else in the building, can arrive half an hour after the rest of their colleagues. Even with a modest shift of this kind we could relieve pressure at the peak times.
I mentioned that British Railways found it difficult to justify investment because of their present assessment of suburban services making a loss. The one important factor which the Government should have in mind here is that if we do not develop our suburban railway services, the alternative is an infinitely more costly policy of large urban motorways, and in the United States, where this policy has been followed, they are in many cases going back to the idea of using more public transport, and not so much the motor car for getting into the centres of cities. I earnestly request the Government to consider the policy of how one costs suburban travel, and whether it might be justifiable, on a totally social benefit basis, to subsidise fares to some extent.
The right hon. Member for Ashford also mentioned suburban car-parking. This, too, is an important problem. There seems to be a great lack of co-ordination between British Railways, the Greater London Council, and the London boroughs, and perhaps further out one sees the same sort of thing. The right hon. Member may find that in Ashford there is not proper co-ordination between the Ashford Council, Kent County Council, and the Southern Region of British Railways. We find this lack of co-ordination in Greater London. I once tried to bring the Orpington Urban District, British Railways and the London County Council together at a conference which we held on this question of suburban parking, but British Railways refused to attend.
We had the idea that we could develop a type of multi-storey car park which would be suitable for a large number of stations around the periphery of Greater London, a kind of industrialised building unit construction which could be erected quite simply outside the railways operating hours, and which according to the calculations of the Cement and Concrete Association, which was responsible for the design, could have been put up for as little as £350 per car parking space. But I am sorry to say that we could not get British Railways to show any interest in it. They would not come to our meeting, and they would not discuss the general principle of the idea with the local authority. I think that one of the most

important tasks for the Minister in this respect is to try to get some sort of co-ordination and co-operation between these various authorities.
Probably the same sort of situation exists in Southend as in my constituency, where, as one comes out of the station, there is a small British Railways car park. On the opposite side of the street there is a garage with a number of car parking spaces. Further down the street one sees lots of cars parked by the side of the road, and further down still, at the bottom of the road, there is a car park by the war memorial where lots of commuters park their cars, even though this area was intended by the local authority to be used by shoppers. There is an obvious need for co-ordination between the providers of these various car parking facilities.
The hon. Member for Southend, West mentioned the extension of underground services, and I agree with him. I do not think that we have gone far enough here. There is an urgent need for Government plans to be made for an underground extending south of the river, not as far as my constituency, but in that general direction, because, if we did this, it would enable British Railways to run more non-stop services between Outer London and the main termini in the centre of the City, while people who came from nearer, from places like Hither Green, would be able to use the new underground line.
One other possible form of transport which we ought seriously to consider in the next year or two is the use of hovercraft on the Thames. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Southend, West has studied this, but I should have thought that a large S.R.N. type of Hovercraft coming upriver from his constituency might be a convenient means of transport for commuters who want to come into the City or to Westminster. I have travelled in smaller Hovercraft on the Thames. They can travel at about 50 miles an hour, which would exceed the speed of any road transport from the hon. Gentleman's constituency into the centre of London.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that they make a hideous noise? We had a demonstration before the hon. Member


came to the House. They would cause grave disturbances to people along the banks of the river.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman noticed that last summer a Hovercraft carrying tourists made regular trips up and down the Thames. During the last few months I have travelled in a Westland Hovercraft on a demonstration trip down the Thames. I do not think that the noise which these craft emit is worse than that to which one is accustomed in the centre of London from the traffic which runs much closer to one's place of work.
One other thing which I should like to mention in mitigating the commuter problem is the dispersal of offices. I know that we have the Location of Offices Bureau, and I think that it is doing a valuable job, but I wonder whether some more urgent consideration should be given by the Government to moving some of their offices out of London. I appreciate what has been done already, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Public Building and Works gave some figures yesterday of the number of square feet occupied by Government offices in the centre of London, and they took my breath away. According to the Location of Offices Bureau, it is possible for a commercial firm to save £375 for every employee who is moved out of Greater London and well beyond. There seems to be scope here not only for relieving the commuter problem which we are discussing, but for effecting considerable savings in Government expenditure.
To take one example at random, is there any point in the Plant and Seeds Varieties Office being in the centre of London? I think that with a fine tooth-comb the Government should go through all these millions of square feet which they occupy in the centre of London to see to what extent the work carried out there can be dispersed, not just to one of the expanded towns within reach of Greater London, but far beyond that.
Finally, I should like to mention what seems to me to be a grave defect in Government planning over the last few years. I am not making a political point against one party or the other. The right hon. Member for Ashford hinted at this. It seems that the development plans in the South-East Region generally have

outpaced the growth of transport services, and there is no co-ordination to speak of between the two. In my constituency houses are being put up in large numbers at Crofton Heath, Biggin Hill, and St. Mary Cray. We are delighted that this is so. We have not nearly solved our housing problem, and this is very necessary.
Last summer British Railways carried out a survey by distributing forms to everyone who came into Greater London from suburban stations. All that British Railways were interested in was how many people were travelling at what time at that moment in time. They told me that they were not interested in the planning permissions which had been awarded. It seems to me that in drawing up plans for the development of commuter services, British Railways should be thinking not about the existing traffic, but about these many thousands—I think that the right hon. Gentleman said 20,000 per year—who are going to be added to the tide of commuters sweeping into London.
British Railways should have comprehensive information from the planning authorities about where these people will live, and they should be able to calculate how many of them will be working in Greater London so that they can evolve a long-term plan which will put the commuter services right. I should like to hear something from the hon. Member about whether the new committee which has been set up by the Minister will have this matter at the centre of its thoughts.

7.50 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers: I apologise to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for not following his argument. We are all extremely indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), for the constructive way in which the problems of London commuters have been ventilated. I make no apology for narrowing the scope of my remarks to a commuter problem in my constituency, since at least a third of my constituents are regular commuters to London.
Recently, the Southern Region of British Railways has applied to the Minister of Transport for permission to close the Hurst Green-Crowborough line, which involves closing at least three


stations in my constituency—Edenbridge, Cowden and Hever. Edenbridge is particularly used by commuters to London. It is interesting to note that none of these closures was foreshadowed in the Beeching Report. Now, for reasons which I do not yet know, the Southern Region has applied for permission to close the whole of this line.
Since I heard the news I have, naturally, been in touch with Mr. McKenna, the General Manager of the Southern Region, and asked him for a reasoned case why he thought it necessary to close this line and these stations, in view of the considerable amount of perturbation and consternation in my constituency. He was most courteous, polite and helpful, but he could not supply me with any information because he had already submitted a case to the Ministry and felt that it would be unconstitutional for him to give me any information. He went on to say that it would be quite in order for the Ministry to supply the information if it so desired.
The matters in respect of which I was asking for information, and on which I am still seeking information, are three in number. First, what is the economic argument for the closure of this line? What is the Southern Region losing? There is a suspicion among my constituents that for the last year or two this line has been deliberately run down by British Railways. I will not say whether that is right or wrong, but that is the feeling that exists. Great delays have occurred, day after day, in the service provided by this line. There have been many reroutings, and also certain stoppages. These have increased the time taken for certain parts of the journey by 40 minutes. Nevertheless, hundreds of people still use this line every day, and it is, therefore, only reasonable for my constituents to know what the economic arguments are.
Secondly, what alternatives does the Minister propose should be used by my constituents if the line is closed? Are they to be told to use their cars as far as Oxted, which already has overfull car parks, and has standing room only on its own commuter trains? Is she expecting my constituents to use their own cars? In many instances public transport, in the

form of buses, is not available. If my constituents use their own cars this will merely add to the congestion on the road and the problem of parking in London.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): I want to be as helpful as possible in replying. The hon. Member has said that he raised some of these questions with British Railways and was advised to seek information from the Ministry. Has he sought that information from the Ministry before tonight, or is he raising it now for the first time? I want to be as helpful as possible, not having had any notice of these matters.

Sir J. Rodgers: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I raised this matter with the former Minister direct and had a letter from him. It is as a result of that letter that I am making my protest now, on a point of principle. There is nothing personal in it.
The third question which disturbs me and my constituents is whether other factors, beyond the mere economics of railway operation, have been taken into account. I refer especially to the development of places like Edenbridge, which already has an L.C.C. overspill estate and plans shortly to extend it. Furthermore, there is an application for a private estate of about 3,000 houses before the Kent County Council, and plans for a rural district council housing estate at Edenbridge. All these developments will add to the demand for travel on the line which is now to be closed down. I am a little worried to know whether, at the right time, sufficient account of the proposed development of these areas is taken before British Railways apply and the Ministry grants permission for them to go ahead to a point where a public inquiry is necessary.
I cannot get any of the answers I require from British Railways, and it appears that the Minister of Transport thinks that the time is not ripe for me to have this information from the Ministry, because she wants to consider it herself before my constituents and their Member of Parliament have access to the information which is laid before her. Why is this information denied to me now? I can see no reason why it should not be readily available, and


why the case deployed by British Railways should not be made available to my constituents' Member of Parliament, so that he can formulate a case against it when, there is a public hearing.

7.57 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): I want, first, to thank the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) for his usual courtesy in telling me at some length about most of the matters he wished to raise tonight. In a very wide-ranging debate of this kind it is not possible, with the best will in the world, to anticipate all the matters that will be raised, and if I do not reply in detail to some of them I am sure that hon. Members will understand. I will endeavour to write to hon. Members about them in due course.
I cannot reply to all the questions raised by the hon. Member for Seven-oaks (Sir J. Rodgers), because I was not aware that he was going to raise them tonight. Had he given me notice I would have been able to answer. However, I shall deal with the general observation that he made because it concerns an important point. My Minister regards it as important to take into account proposed developments in areas affected by proposed rail closures. She now has the assistance of the planning councils set up for the whole country—only recently for this part of the world. The question raised by the hon. Member is one which these councils are specifically asked whenever there is an application by British Railways to close a line. Councils are asked what are the planning implications in respect of the development of the affected region, so that the Minister can have the best advice.
The hon. Member asked why, at this stage, he is denied some of the information which he seeks. I cannot give reasons for the specific matters about which he wished to obtain information, but he is aware of the procedure that is followed in these matters. British Railways present their case, which goes first to the Minister for consent. The Minister has then to decide whether the proposal is in any event unacceptable or whether it should go forward for consideration. This is published and the case then goes before the T.U.C.C, which examines the whole

issue of hardship and makes its report to the Minister.
I explained earlier that, in addition, the planning council's advice is now also sought. After all these matters, and on the basis of this information, the Minister has eventually to reach her conclusion in the light of her statutory duty under the 1962 Act. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is faulting the Minister. I am not aware that there is any change in procedure over this information between the present Minister and the last on this very narrow aspect—

Sir J. Rodgers: I was not trying to fault the Minister. I was merely trying to improve the present procedures. I agree that there has been no change in those procedures since the change of Government. I was trying to ensure that information is available to Members of Parliament as speedily as possible in order that it might be discussed with the right background between them and their constituents.

Mr. Morris: I take the hon. Member's point. We are looking closely and anxiously at the existing procedures and we should be grateful for any suggestions of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, with his experience in Government.
Before the Minister has come to final decisions on many applications by British Rail, I have seen many hon. Members from both sides of the House. If the hon. Member wishes to see the Minister or me, I am sure that that can be arranged. We are anxious that, whenever there is an application, the whole community should know as much as possible in order that the decision is agreed by all to be the right one—

Mr. Deedes: Is the planning department to which the Parliamentary Secretary refers able, where a new centre of population may be developed after it has been decided to close a line, to say that, in the light of the new circumstances, that line should remain open, or must the question go to an inquiry?

Mr. Morris: Under the 1962 Act, the Minister's function is ended once a decision has been reached that the line should be closed. When the Minister comes to her decision, it becomes a matter entirely for British Rail—that is spelt out clearly under the 1962 Act.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) spoke about the need for co-ordination and co-operation. I sympathise very much with his points and those of the right hon. Member for Ashford and the hon. Member for Sevenoaks on the difficulties of people travelling from the South-East from Kent to London. I do so myself, every day, from Chislehurst. Fortunately, I do not travel every day at the peak hours, but I am certainly on the train at one part of the day: I have travelled on it with the hon. Member for Orpington. The journey, for a large number of people—far too many—coming into London, has become worse and worse as the years have gone by. The right hon. Member for Ashford spoke about the need to switch from private cars to public transport. We could have had a most interesting debate on this subject alone, with many observations. Perhaps that would be a valuable exercise eventually.
I will deal tonight only with the very narrow aspect of co-ordination. We all accept the need for the left hand to know what the right hand is doing. This has frequently not been the case in the past. We have made special arrangements to bring together the public transport boards and all the Government Departments with an interest in planning and transport in the South-East. This has been done in the context of the regional planning machinery for the South-East. The South-East Regional Planning Board, which is the officials' counterpart of the Regional Planning Council, has set up a planning and transport sub-committee. This is chaired by the Ministry of Transport and representatives of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Board of Trade, British Rail, London Transport, and other people sit on the body.
This is an important step forward, which will make co-ordinated planning possible. Last week, the Minister set up the new Transport Co-ordinating Council for London. The hon. Member for Orpington raised this matter and spoke of the need for energetic and urgent action. This Council is designed to bring together the main bodies with responsibilities for transport in the London area—the Ministry, the Greater London Council, the London boroughs, London Transport,

British Rail and the trade unions. In order to cover the needs of the remainder of the South-East of London, the Chairman of the South-East Regional Economic Planning Council is also a member.
This Council has set up five working groups to deal with specific problems, many of which have been raised tonight. Some of these are, obviously, of great interest to commuters. The first group is called the Public Transport Operations and Traffic Management Co-ordination Group. I apologise for the length of the title. Among other things, this group will consider such matters as co-ordination arrangements betwen British Rail and London Transport services and the effect of traffic management schemes on bus services.
The second group which has been set up is the Public Transport Investment Group. Hon. Members raised the issue of underground lines and general investment, and these will be the responsibility of this body, which will also look at the question of the electrification of existing railway services.
Another group is the Interchanges Group, which will consider problems of interchange between different forms of transport—for example, bus and rail, car and rail. It will cover the problem of building bigger car parks at stations where commuters leave the railways. These are the steps which have been taken on co-ordination.
I am sure that both sides of the House would agree that there is an enormous need to have this kind of machinery, to ensure that a proper examination of all these aspects takes place speedily so that some of the great problems of commuters entering London from around the city are alleviated.
The hon. Member for Southend, West made some very pertinent observations about the short-term future. It is all very well to plan for the long term, but people want to know what will happen in the short term. They travel up and down, day in and day out and they want to know what will happen. Hon. Members may know that, as recently as January, Southern Region of British Rail announced plans for substantially increasing the peak hour capacity of its services. I am advised that these plans can be put into operation quickly and will cost nearly half a million pounds.
The aim will be to relieve the congested South-East Division lines from Kent, East Sussex and the South London suburbs. The Region is to spend the money on improving tracks and signalling equipment so that it can introduce a completely new timetable which will enable it, in the South-East Division alone, to provide an extra 15 to 18 suburban trains and eight long distance trains into and out of London during the peak hour, evening and morning, with a total of 2,000 extra seats in each rush hour.
On the Central Division, it will provide a net increase in the peak hour of five trains into and out of London Bridge and Victoria for the services to the South Coast, Sussex and Surrey, providing about 3,000 extra seats. In the South-Western Division, services to the south-west suburbs. Surrey and Hampshire will be increased by nine extra trains at peak hours into and out of Waterloo, providing about 5,000 extra seats. These extra trains are in addition to those provided for Hampshire commuters under the £15 million Bournemouth electrification scheme, which is now well under way and is due for completion by the middle of 1967. At the same time, relatively minor works are going on all the time to make improvements. I give the example of changes at Tower Hill station on the District Line, designed to get more trains through the City section of the line during the peak hours. That is an indication of what can be done in the short term. These improvements are in the pipeline, and when they materialise they will be valuable.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before the hon. Member leaves the short term, may I ask him whether he is aware that there are 10,700 more non-industrial civil servants than there were on 1st October, 1964, and that many of these are clogging up the commuter lines? Will he bear that in mind?

Mr. Morris: I will certainly bear that in mind. I will add the useful piece of information that the statistics division of my right hon. Friend's Ministry is moving out to Hemel Hempstead.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): That goes for the Board of Trade, too.

Mr. Morris: I understand that the Board of Trade is also making its contribution. The difficulty is that when office staff are moved physically out of London, frequently someone else fills the gap. That is a very great problem.
Turning to the long-term future for commuters, British Railways and London Transport have produced for the Ministry railway plans for London which recommend tube extensions from Victoria to Brixton, new tube lines—the Fleet line, from Baker Street to New Cross—and improvements on British Rail such as, for example, electrification of the Lea Valley line. Plans such as those for new investment will be considered by the new transport co-ordinating council for London in the light of the London Transportation Study, which aims to draw up a scientifically-based transportation plan for London. That is a fair indication of both the short term and the long term and the machinery which has been suggested to ensure that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.
I was asked about the Location of Offices Bureau. That is the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but I am told that in the year 1964–65, 96 firms moved after consulting the Bureau, and that involved almost 6,000 jobs.

Mr. Channon: As he has the advantage of the presence of the Minister of State for the Board of Trade, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can tell us when we shall get the annual report under the Act dealing with the control of offices? If not, could he inquire of his hon. Friend?

Mr. Morris: That is not one of the matters of which I have notice from the hon. Member. I will make inquiries of my hon. Friend at a more suitable moment and will write to the hon. Member.
I was also asked about car parks. This matter will come under the interchanges group of the co-ordinating council, who will be responsible for advising about it.
I turn to the question of fares. The hon. Member for Southend, West has played an important part in the past in this matter. With some of his hon. Friends, he went to see the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. The hon. Member said that


his constituents are suffering from the anomaly that rail fares within London are controlled by the Transport Tribunal but that rail fares outside London do not come under this control.
I can see the basis of his complaint, but, as he knows, it is a direct result of the 1962 Act. Before his party introduced the 1962 Act, this anomaly did not exist because there was a nation-wide control. May I refer him to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) during the Second Reading debate on 20th November, 1961, when his right hon. Friend said:
I turn now to commercial freedom. All fares and charges, except for passenger fares in London, will be removed from the control of the Transport Tribunal. Railways, like most industrial enterprises, will now, in the main, be free to shape their own commercial and price policy. They will also be freed from a number of statutory restrictions and obligations, which oblige them to provide certain facilities and services regardless of whether they pay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 936.]
The present situation stems entirely from the 1962 Act. During the course of the afternoon I turned up the pages of the Report of the Committee stage of that Bill, wondering whether any hon. Member—I exonerate the hon. Member for Southend, West who was not on that Committee—had raised that point in order to protect his constituents.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Member must appreciate the point which I made earlier about the anomalous position of Southend which, although not in the London area, was treated for all purposes as if it were, and this, to my mind wrongly, made some difference under the Transport Act, 1962.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member realises the financial obligations which were placed by the same Act on British Railways. British Railways found themselves not curtailed in any way; they had this complete freedom—praised by the right hon. Member for Wallasey—to do what they wished, and his constituents suffered as a direct result.
The hon. Member and others met the previous Minister, who told them that there could be no immediate change in the basis of railway fares policy, although later, in reply to a Parliamentary Ques-

tion, he said that the present definition of the London Passenger Transport Area would be among the matters considered when the results of the current transport co-ordination studies are assessed. This is important, because the boundaries of the present London Passenger Transport Area date back to 1932 or 1933. As people have moved their places of residence and today are often travelling longer distances, it may well be, as the previous Minister indicated, that there is a case for examination—without making any promise—of what should or should not be the boundary of that area. We are pledged, as the hon. Member knows, to annul the evil effects of the 1962 Act. Without making any promise whatever, I will say that the boundaries of the London Passenger Transport Area will certainly be a matter which will come up for consideration.

8.18 p.m.

Sir Martin Redmayne: I do not want to take much of the time of the House, but I should like to revert to the question of parking at suburban stations, because I am not very satisfied that the Minister should rest his case on the fact that it has been referred to the interchange group of the co-ordinating council. This seems to be George Orwell at his best. I hope that it will produce some results in due course.
But my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) asked how space was to be provided on a sufficient scale for suburban car parks. It is no longer a matter of converting a disused coalyard or station yard. This problem must be tackled on a big scale. I wonder whether this interchange group of the co-ordinating council has been instructed that it is so to tackle it. For example, there is no question but that we ought to think on the lines of multi-storey car parks for this purpose.
I remind the Minister and my right hon. Friend of the great virtues for this purpose of mechancial, automatic parks on the lines of one in Old Burlington Street. I will not mention the name of the commercial firm. Even where we have land of great value in suburban areas, we can get on to a ground space of 150 ft. by 50 ft.—the actual stack of the park—as much parking as would be provided by two miles of road. We must be ambitious about this.
The advantage of speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party is, I suppose, that one can make statements for which one need not be held responsible. I say that without malice to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who spoke largely about the assessment of social cost. I regard that assessment as a dangerous tendency, because in the hands of dishonest politicians—of whom there is none in this House—it could be an excuse for very sloppy administration. It is only too easy to say that we must tackle these matters on the basis of social cost and all will be well, but however one faces the questions of car parks, commuter travel, the provision of tubes or whatever it might be, we must, in making an honest attempt to assess the social cost, keep in the background of that assessment the question of the commercial viability of what we are doing.
If social cost is to come into the argument, under the proper control of whichever party has the matter in hand, it would be well worth while to consider whether the element of social cost—which could be argued in support of the provision of car parking on a generous scale at suburban stations—would not show a great saving over some of the extravagant, inflated expenditures which are necessary to solve the traffic problems in inner London, which are of themselves much more expensive to solve.

Mr. Lubbock: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that if we are thinking in terms of social cost we should remember that car parks are provided by many local authorities in outer London completely free.

Sir M. Redmayne: That is a good point, but it rather argues against the point which the hon. Gentleman made previously. I hope that when the interchange group considers these matters it will not be backward in its thoughts and that it may, in the end, save a great deal of expenditure nearer the centre of London.

Orders of the Day — SMALL BUSINESSES

8.22 p.m.

Mr. William Clark: Having presumably finished with transport, I thought that it might be a good idea to talk about the future of small businesses. It is a long time since the House debated this specific subject. In the hurly burly of politics some politicians are inclined to overlook the problems and fears of small businessmen.
There are about 400,000 small companies in Britain. Probably 300,000 of them are actually operating while the others are dormant. At any rate, hundreds of thousands of small firms are not incorporated, but are one-, two-, three-man businesses, particularly family businesses, many of which are known to hon. Members, whatever their constituencies.
Small businesses cover many industries. There are obviously a number in the service industries—food distribution, retailing, transport, building, and so on. Many of them are situated in small factories. Many are small manufacturing businesses, either for export or making component parts. Most of them give a personal service and this is particularly true in the retailing business.
It has been said that we are a nation of small shopkeepers. I prefer to say that we are a nation of small businessmen. This has been the basis of our economic success over the last 100 to 150 years. All businessmen, particularly the small ones, have their worries. Businessmen in the retailing trade were particularly worried in 1964—although their fears started long before then—with the great upsurge of supermarkets. At that time the small retailer thought that he would be squeezed out by the supermarkets. This has not happened. The small retailer is still in business.
More fears were expressed with the passing of the Resale Prices Act, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition introduced in March, 1964. This Measure caused considerable fears, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and retailers have not been put out of business by the abolition of price maintenance. I mention, in this connection, that the present Government


have something to be thankful for in that Measure, because to a certain extent it has kept down the cost of living. I have no doubt that in the coming weeks the party opposite will make all that it can of that, but it should be remembered that it was a Conservative Measure that brought this about.
In speaking about small businesses, particularly small family ones, it should be understood that they are part of our economy and the backbone of the country. The people who run these businesses are efficient. They must be, or they are squeezed out of business. Obviously, the small businessman, with all the competition he must suffer, must be hard working. He puts in long hours. He must be inventive. He cannot possibly have a monopoly in anything because there are so many small businessmen, all of whom must be progressive. The penalty for not being all these things is losing money. This makes the small businessman, who does not have huge reserves behind him, efficient.
We are discussing the private enterprise of our nation. No Government can legislate for prosperity, but the Government can set the scene whereby prosperity can come about. This is the nub of the problem. Small businessmen accept that they must be competitive and no Government should do anything which could harm the small businessman, and here we come to the legislation of the past 16 or 17 months.
The April, 1965, Budget really hit the small businessman, particularly the small family businessman, because most small companies are close companies. And, as such, under the 1965 Finance Act most close companies had very penal regulations and restrictions placed on them from the taxation point of view. The criticism from this side was that the application of Corporation Tax had not been thought through to the bitter end.
The small companies—assuming that they are close companies, which most of them are—are owned by what are known as participators. A small business that is successful and is making a fair profit is put in a ludicrous position. When I speak of a small business, I am not thinking of the one-man business, but of the small close company that employs 100,

150, 200, or 300 men. Such companies are the backbone of our manufacturing potential. Yet we have the ludicrous position that under Corporation Tax the distribution of profits is made really penal.
The Minister of State may reply that the same penalty existed under the old taxation system with the so-called Surtax company, but I would remind him that the Surtax company regulations were not really as stringent from a distribution of profits point of view as is the present Corporation Tax. It may be argued, "All right, if your close company is being hit, form yourselves into a partnership." I hope that the Minister will not mention that as the answer to the problem, because he knows as well as I do that borrowing can be more easily done through the auspices of the limited company—where one can offer debentures, perference shares, or whatever—rather than through a partnership.
Many hon. Members on both sides have great experience in business. It is known that many of these small family companies get their own capital through their families, and these are participators. I just cannot understand why, under Corporation Tax, when a family business borrows money from a director or a participator at a true commercial rate of interest—no high interest rate or anything like that—it is not allowed for tax purposes. That is hitting small businesses.
There are other methods of borrowing money. One can borrow by the issue of preference shares giving a fixed rate of interest. If it is a cumulative preference share, where the preference shareholder does not necessarily share in the equity of the company, it is tantamount to saying that it is a debenture to say to a small businessman, "If you hold preference shares or debentures in your company, the interest on them is not considered to be a charge, but as a distribution", and there is penal taxation on it.
The small family businessman must go outside his sphere of participators and outside his sphere of directors and borrow from an outsider. Is this good enough? Why should we, with our taxation legislation, force family businesses—which have the money available to them from their own participators—to go outside for their finance?
Another thing that has hit the small businessman is the investment incentive. I shall not make the party point that the investment incentive is worth about £100 million less than it was before the April, 1965, Budget, although that is correct in fact. The Minister of State may recollect that under the old system the cost of the investment allowances given was £320 million, and under the new system, even with the cash grants, it is about £225 million. These are the best figures we can get, as I understand that they came from the Treasury.
Many of these small businesses are in the service industries and the distributive trades, and are not eligible for the cash investment grant. This is extremely important in the tourist industry. My constituency is a tourist visiting place, and an excellent place to go to, but the tourist industry throughout the country, and particularly in the seaside resorts, is being hit very hard indeed because of the non-availability of the cash investment grant.
Most people in our tourist industry are small businessmen—with a small hotel, restaurant, or the like. These are the people who have been hit by the legislation we have had over the past year or so. Many of my hon. Friends who have spoken in debates on investment incentive and on the last Finance Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies)—take a great interest in our tourist industry, as the House knows.
I appreciate that the Companies Bill will fall on Prorogation tomorrow, but small businessmen had great fears about the implications of that Bill, brought forward by the Labour Government. The points made on that Bill—as the Minister of State, who opened the debate, will remember—put forward no valid reason why the Jenkins Committee Report was not accepted in its entirety. The Minister will realise that the Jenkins Committee pointed out the difference between a big business and a small business and between large companies and small companies. The Government have advanced no reason why the small family business should be subject to the same regulations as the giants.
I have never been able to understand why in a small company it is necessary to

disclose turnover. There is a genuine fear among small businessmen, particularly where many firms make only one article, that a competitor, by paying 1s. or whatever is involved—if the Bill had gone through—could very easily find out the turnover of a small business. The Government have advanced no valid reason for this disclosure and small businessmen are very worried about it.
I do not think that any small businessman has fear of competition; what he fears is unfair competition. We look at the legislation which has come out of the pipeline of the present Government. We have had the statement on the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. I accept that it has not become an Act, but it involves State interference in business. I shall not go over all the arguments of anti-nationalisation, but State interference in business is bound to hit the small businessman before it hits the giant. It is bound to hit him if competition is unfair.
The Government have plans for extending the powers of the nationalised industries. Unless those industries or the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation are to be commercially viable and, therefore, an extra drain on the taxpayer, we shall have unfair competition with other companies and businesses. In the past hon. Members opposite have jeered at stop-go policy, but since October, 1964, we have had more or less stop-stop. We have had the longest credit squeeze in history. Who does that squeeze hit? The large company can stand it. It has huge reserves, but the small businessman finds his rate of interest increased; but the special deposit and increased liquidity ratio of the banks and overdraft went down and the small man is hit by any credit squeeze.
I have spent much time talking to businessmen, as no doubt other hon. Members have done. What does the small businessman think of his future? He welcomes opportunity. He is not afraid to work. I am sure that the Minister of State would agree with that. He wants competition, but not unfair competition. His fear is that private enterprise is being whittled away, slowly but surely, under the legislation which has come from this Government. [Laughter.] It is all very well for the Minister of State to laugh, but I assure


him that there is a genuine fear among small businessmen that that is the policy of the Labour Government. I would be delighted if the Minister of State could say that the measures which I have mentioned, Corporation Tax, the investment incentives, and so on, will remedy the position for the small businessman, but in fact, they will hit him.
No doubt the hon. Gentleman will recollect that during our debates on the Finance Bill one of my hon. Friends said that it looked as though family businesses would disappear, and his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs said, "And a good job, too". That remark has never been withdrawn. What is the businessman to infer from it? A Minister of the Crown says "And a good job, too" about small family businesses disappearing.
I hope that nothing I have said will be taken as showing any bias against the large companies. They do an excellent job for the economy. But they have huge resources and if the small man is squeezed out, as he surely will be if present Labour policies are continued much longer, his business will be taken over by a larger company, and the large companies will become larger and larger, so that there will be more and more monopolies. The Government say that they could deal with such a situation. But the conclusion which must be drawn from all the measures which they have put to the House is that they want to eradicate the small business.
I hope that hon. Members will not think that I am over-stating the case when I say that my personal fear, my personal hunch, is that it is deliberate policy of the Labour Government to squeeze out the small man. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite shake their heads. I wish that they could prove what they suggest. It is no good shaking one's head and saying that it is not true when one introduces legislation which hits the small man.
Is this policy part of an extension of nationalisation? I seriously put it to the Minister of State that it is obvious that if the Labour Government could reduce the number of small businessmen and have their businesses taken over by the giants, it would be easier to nationalise

the giants than the small businesses. If there are 200 or 300 giants, they can be nationalised more or less by the stroke of the pen, certainly much more easily than nationalising hundreds of thousands of small businesses.
My conviction is that the abolition of the family business—and I use the expression "family business" in its widest sense—would be a disaster to the economy.
The profit motive is the driving force in all business, big or small. I am not afraid, and I do not think that any hon. Member on either side of the House should be afraid, of the profit motive.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): Hear, hear.

Mr. Clark: I am delighted at last to carry the hon. Gentleman with me. It is rather a death-bed repentence for him, because most of his hon. Friends think that there is something wrong about the profit motive. I remind hon. Members that the small business is the forerunner of the large. If there had been in force all the legislation which the Labour Government have passed and which they have forecast in White Papers and so on, Lord Nuffield would never have started his organisation. That is a salutary lesson for all of us. Everyone wants to build up the country's competitive power and we must always support the man who is inventive and progressive. We on this side of the House believe in private enterprise. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that private enterprise does not want to be mollycoddled; but it does not want to be deliberately harmed by legislation. The Labour Party is anti-business. This is quite obvious. It is anti-small business. We on this side of the House reject this policy.
A Government who try to restrain the small businessman are defeating themselves, because if we kill private initiative it will be disastrous for our future. Nowhere is initiative more important than in business. As the Minister of State knows, the whole economy depends upon private enterprise, which is responsible for 95 per cent. of our exports. When we on this side of the House are returned to power, very shortly, we shall do all we can to further incentives and we shall not penalise initiative.
I started by saying that the future of small businesses is extremely bright, but I must enter the caveat that it is bright only if we have a Conservative Government.

8.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): The speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. William Clark) turned out to be much as I anticipated. It was an electioneering effort, the kind of effort which I suppose we must expect from all Conservatives from now until polling day. It was a typical Tory electioneering speech, full of synthetic emotion, almost completely misleading, generally inaccurate, and in parts positively untruthful. But I will treat the hon. Gentleman kindly. We know that he and his hon. and right hon. Friends are on a very sticky wicket and that he must lash out in this irresponsible fashion. Therefore, with what I hope will be commendable brevity, I will try to point out his misconceptions and glaring errors. Afterwards I think that, in all friendship, I can bid him goodbye as he goes to the hustings to do his worst.
I am not quoting the hon. Member's exact words but the tenor of his speech was that it is the determined aim of the present Government and of the Labour Party to strangle or squeeze out small businesses, to close them down, or nationalise them or hand them over to big companies in some way. This view of our attitude towards small businesses, family businesses and small-scale enterprises of all kind is completely untrue. I am sure that in his calmer moments, when he has time after the election to think things over and think back on the days when he was in the House, the hon. Member will be prepared to say so.
If the hon. Member will allow me, I would say that even to suggest that as a matter of principle we are opposed to small-scale firms and wish to crush them in some way is just downright silly, for the very reasons that the hon. Member gave. I am sorry, but I must put it like that. For instance, why did we pass the Monopolies and Mergers Act as one of the first things that the Government put on the Statute Book if we had not wished to protect them for oligopolies—I am sorry to have to use that word—and undesirable takeovers? We put the Act

on the Statute Book to protect small companies, and if the hon. Member wants me to coin a phrase as a truthful election slogan for him I would say, "Labour is on the side of the small business".
I agree with the hon. Member that small businesses form an important part of the country's economy, and there is every reason to suppose that they will continue to do so. I will not quarrel with the hon. Member when he says that they are important in themselves. As he also said, they are important because in some cases they develop into large businesses. When the hon. Gentleman talks about inventiveness, I must remind him that it was a Labour Government which introduced the National Research Development Corporation in order to give help to those inventors who were in small businesses and had not sufficient economic strength behind them to develop the inventions themselves.
We are on the side of the small man. We are on the side of the inventive person. We do not just talk about it. We do something to help. I assure the House that it is the Government's aim to promote greater efficiency in the economy, and, in our view, there is room in an efficient economy for companies of all sizes.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the disclosure provisions in the Companies Bill will do a lot of harm to small companies. We do not agree at all. The reason why we have gone beyond Jenkins in this matter is that the climate of opinion about disclosure, as the Stock Exchange has shown, has changed since the publication of the Jenkins Report.

Mr. William Clark: I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair. The recommendation of the Stock Exchange was directed to quoted securities. I was speaking about the exempt private company.

Mr. Darling: I did not want to go into detail on the subject, but I was pointing out that the whole climate of opinion about disclosure has changed. Financial journalists admit this. The Stock Exchange itself, not in this particular detail, but in its recommendations and rules, has suggested that there should be more disclosure. There can be no


quarrel about that. Yet there is a problem here. Where do we draw the line? The concept of the exempt private company failed. The definition was wrong. It allowed far too many big companies to come in under an umbrella which should never have been provided for them. Moreover, it is not just the firm concerned which is affected by lack of disclosure. One can understand the arguments which are put forward by some people. I met a deputation from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce which came to see me about this subject. Small companies say that, if too much information is given publicly, their competitors will know far too much about their activities, and, that in the light of the smallness of the operations, it is wrong for the emoluments of family directors in a family business, for example, to be exposed to the public. There are other arguments put forward, too.
On the other side of the question, we have to take into account that the public is concerned, largely because there are so many of these companies. There are other people, too, who are quite properly and legitimately interested in getting information, whether they be suppliers, customers or even employees, who frequently tend to get left out of the argument. There are also the people engaged on another important aspect of these matters nowadays, namely, the commentators and those who investigate the activities of companies; the economists who publish their ideas of the trends of business, and so on. Undoubtedly, the case for disclosure is made out, if these considerations are borne in mind.
In my view, the case for including small companies in the disclosure provisions of the Companies Bill is made out, although I understand many of the arguments which are put up against it. But to attempt a definition which would be satisfactory, to draw the line somewhere and say that companies below that line, whatever the definition might be, should be left out, would be extraordinarily difficult, and I think that this point is well taken.
We must also look at small businesses in their place in the economy as a whole when we consider the question of disclosure. Efficient small businesses, as

do all other efficient businesses, contribute to the well being of the economy as a whole, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said. But, the converse is also true. An efficient economy provides the setting in which an efficient small business can operate. An economy will not be efficient if those who can influence it lack some of the information on which their decision should be based. I will not go into detail on this, because we shall come to this when we re-introduce the Companies Bill, and there will be plenty of opportunity for us to discuss these matters then. But, in my view, many mistakes have been made in the direction of our economy because we do not have enough information about the 300,000 smaller companies and not enough information generally about other activities which are not in themselves companies but are on a small scale.
The economy is not influenced by the Government alone, and I say this because there is an argument that this information, if it is useful to the Board of Trade and the Government, might be provided privately. There are employers' organisations, trade unions, the Press, the public and specialists, such as economists, who all have a part to play in decisions on the country's economy. We believe that the publication by companies of more information about their affairs is of advantage to the whole economy, and what is of advantage to the economy as a whole is of advantage to the great majority of small businesses.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned close companies. I do not want to go over the Finance Bill debates again, except to say that I still believe that firms are no worse off under the Corporation Tax than they were under the Profits Tax and Surtax arrangements previously. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not agree with me, but I do not think there is any point at this time of night on the last day but one of this Parliament in going over the whole ground again.
I want to answer one or two of the hon. Gentleman's other points. He mentioned the new scheme of investment incentives and said that these arrangements will harm the small enterprise. I am sure that it was made perfectly clear in our previous discussions in this House that one of the virtues of the new scheme is that it provides incentives to investment


in a form in which it is understood. Another virtue is that the grants are made sooner than are the capital allowances against taxable profits since when a firm is expanding it may be some years—this particularly applies to small businesses—before sufficient profits are made to cover the allowances. I am sure that these virtues are likely to be appreciated by small companies. We have as yet no evidence that they are not.

Mr. William Clark: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. A cash grant is not available to service industries

Mr. Darling: I am just coming to service industries. The hon. Gentleman should not shift his ground so swiftly. He said that investment allowances under the new scheme as a whole would prejudice small companies. I have just disposed of that, and I now come to the service industries.
It was made clear in the White Paper—this is generally accepted—that what is needed in our economy at present from the point of view of inducements is more investment in manufacturing industry. Everybody who looks at the amount of investment that has gone into the service industries knows very well that we are now out of balance. If we are to use investments in any selective manner—obviously, the purpose of incentives of this kind would break down if we were not selective—we must be selective in the sense that more goes into manufacturing industries and less into service industries to redress the balance. I do not think that anybody who is taking the matter seriously would object to that argument.
With regard to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, I repeat all the assurances that have been given previously. There are no compulsory powers. The Corporation cannot, and will not, nationalise companies in the way that the hon. Member has suggested or in any other way that does not have the approval generally of this House.
The purpose of the Corporation is to help. Small businesses, to carry on their enterprise, to expand and grow, some-

times must amalgamate and get together. Sometimes they require cash to do this. That is what the Corporation will do. It is certainly not anti-business. The reference to nationalised industries has been disposed of so often that the House would be surprised to have it raised again. Why should not plant and equipment that happens to be publicly owned be used for industrial development, as long as it is done—I accept the hon. Member's criteria—in a completely commercial way and in proper and not unfair competition with private industry that may be engaged in the same business?
The hon. Member finished by suggesting that family businesses were now afraid of the Government and of what the Labour Party would do to them. I have met deputations from chambers of commerce representing small businesses. They have not expressed this view. We will not squeeze out the small man. Businesses which are enterprising, efficient and have a future will be helped far more by the measures that this Labour Government have already introduced and promise to introduce than was ever done by Conservative Administrations.
We do not simply go round the country saying that we want the small man to prosper and then put burdens upon him to prevent him from doing so. The credit squeeze has certainly gone on for some time, but it has been a different kind of credit squeeze. There is no increase in unemployment. In fact, we have done something which was considered to be impossible. We have put a brake on the economy to get our financial situation straight and we have done it by increasing employment, which has never been done before. This kind of credit squeeze is something of which we can be proud. We have not put people out of business or out of work. We have tried to live within our resources, and we will go on expanding those resources. The people, knowing very well what our intentions are and that we are capable of carrying out those intentions, will see to it that we are returned again to look after the interests of small businesses and those of all other people who want to be enterprising, prosperous and successful.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL NAVY (APPRENTICE GROUP INSTRUCTORS)

9.3 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak tonight, the first time in a Consolidated Fund Bill debate and to raise the question of the application of apprentice group instructors for non-industrial status. As I have raised, this matter before and there has been considerable correspondence about it, it would be a simple matter for the Minister of Defence for the Navy to get up and say that he will give me all I have previously asked for, in which case there will be no need for me to make my speech. I do not know whether to be hopeful. I notice, however, that the hon. Gentleman is not looking in my direction.

The Minister of Defence for the Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I am listening to what the hon. Lady has to say.

Dame Joan Vickers: There has been so much correspondence between us, and as I raised the matter on 29th July last year and still have not had an answer, I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have one ready for me.
On 27th September, 1964, when the Prime Minister made a speech in Plymouth in regard to the Royal Navy he said:
Another issue…we believe in fair wages and conditions.
For a long time, and a great deal of correspondence, I have been raising the question of the application by apprentic group instructors to have non-industrial status. I consider it is high time that this group were given adequate reward for their work.
It is interesting to note that the instructors who do exactly the same job at H.M.S. "Caledonia", "Fishguard", "Thunderer" and "Condor" have obtained this status. They were given it on 1st April, 1955, under A.F.O. 2134/55. These civilian trade instructors were transferred at that time to non-industrial status. I can give him the exact date and reference—CE/L11694/51 of 5th August, 1955. These people have exactly the same duties as those for whom I am pleading with the Minister today and have this non-industrial status.
It has been agreed, I understand, by the Minister that this group of instructors have an arguable case. On 9th July, 1965, the Minister in a letter said:
The question is still under discussion following a recent review, and no decision has yet been reached.
He went on to say:
Suffice to say that the views of the instructors themselves, well known as they are, are being fully taken into account in the current consideration of the problem.
He also wrote to his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter), who has Rosyth dockyard in his area, and a copy was sent to me. This was also dated 9th July. He said:
Unhappily, in one sense, this review had to be halted because the trade union representatives on the Navy Department Industrial Whitley Council, including those who represent the apprentice group instructors, requested a discussion of the general principles which in the future should govern the transfer of industrial staff to non-industrial terms of service.
He went on to say:
While the discussions between the trade union side and the Treasury were in progress the Chancellor accepted a proposal by the trade union side for a standstill on future transfers.
He later continued thus:
This does not prevent us in the Navy Department from doing our own thinking on this issue".
This is what I am requesting the hon. Gentleman to do tonight—to do his own thinking on this issue—because this matter has been lagging for far too long.
He went on to say:
Nor does it prevent us from considering, fully and without bias, all representations, however impolitely expressed".
I would hope he has never had anything impolitely expressed, either by me or by anybody in Devonport, but, however impolitely expressed a representation may be, he is not going to be deterred, whether he receives it from Rosyth or elsewhere.
I really think it is about time that these people got their adequate rights, because, continuing the correspondence I received from the hon. Gentleman, he said:
As regards your reference to the Amalgamated Engineering Union, we have heard nothing from that body on this subject for years".


This is not surprising, because the union is obviously not anxious to make representations on behalf of a body of people if they are going to lose them as members, and these men, having got non-industrial status, would automatically, I presume, join the Civil Service union, and the Civil Service union is very willing to have them, but that body, unfortunately, is not a negotiating body for conditions of service.
So this group of very worthy people, who are doing an excellent job, seem to fall between two stools. They cannot go back to the union which was originally their union and they cannot be helped by the other union to which they would go, because, apparently, it is not a negotiating union.
I want to know why the Navy Department does not take any action, and why it is settling back on trade union disagreements. Surely, as is pointed out in one of the quotations I have made, it is high time that the Navy Department made up its mind about this very urgent problem. I should like to know from the Minister whether, in truth, he really accepts the need for this change, or whether it is being held up by the Treasury.
These men have very high qualifications. In the Navy Department, they are not given a syllabus by the Navy. They have to put over their own syllabus, which is a practical and theoretical one; they start the courses, and they have full responsibility. They personally plan each course, and in Devonport they have been extremely successful. They also set examinations and mark the papers. In the training that they do, I gather that they are considered to be a vital link in industry. What is more, they have the arduous task of seeing that machines are cleaned and in order, and that equipment is there. They order stores, they give lectures, and they maintain discipline.
That is one of the reasons why they want the additional status, but it is not the only reason, because there is also a question of pay. In their non-industrial status in the dockyard, their weekly earnings are a minimum of £16 19s. and a maximum of £19 19s. If they were given the status which I am requesting, they would get a minimum of £1,201 and a maximum of £1,320. The lowest-paid Government instructor receives £6 2s. a

week more than these people do. Instructors in the rehabilitation centres only have to prepare men for certain trades, but these instructors have to prepare men for many trades. They also have to prepare them for the Ordinary National Certificate, for the Technical Certificate and for the City and Guilds.
I should have thought it was high time that the moratorium was raised and that these people were given the pay and status to bring them into line with other people doing the same work, and above those in other Government services who are doing less arduous jobs. I hope that what I have said will persuade the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply that the time has come to give these men the status and pay that they deserve.
When I asked for this debate, I also mentioned surgery assistants, who are in the same position. They are holding very responsible jobs in the surgeries of the dockyards. Many of them are State-enrolled nurses and they have had to take courses in first-aid, home nursing, life saving and so on. Quite a number of them are in sole charge of the surgeries for considerable periods of the day. Some of them have no medical officer with them and have to telephone to the nearest medical officer if needed, but it is entirely up to them to take immediate action necessary when a casualty is brought in. To my own knowledge, on more than one occasion recently they have been savers of life, and I should have thought that they were worthy of the status which they request.
When I appealed on their behalf and mentioned that they were members of the Transport and General Workers' Union, I received a letter from the hon. Gentleman in which he said:
I am not surprised to learn about the Transport and General Workers not taking up their case since the trades union side of the Council have agreed with the Chancellor that a moratorium should be placed on all future non-industrialisation pending negotiations.
Can we learn tonight how long the Chancellor's moratorium is to last? Does it cover all people who wish to improve themselves, or it is just connected with people who work in the dockyards? Is it a Government decision over the whole range of workers, because I think that it is a very high-handed method of dealing with a most important question.
Finally, I should like to mention the claim by the metal polishers for their rates to be brought up to those of electroplaters. I have written to the hon. Gentleman about this, and I have here his reply dated 24th February. All the time we are fobbed off by being told that things are still under negotiation. Apparently this claim is still under negotiation between the trade union side and the official side of the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council, and the position at the moment is that the trade union side is considering its reply to a reasoned statement by the official side.
I think that people are getting rather frustrated by being told, in answer to all the points that are put forward in regard to getting any form of regrading, and in regard to giving people a better chance in life, that things are under negotiation, under a moratorium, under consideration between the officials of one Department and another, and so on. I hope that tonight the hon. Gentleman will be able to give me a satisfactory reply by saying that the Navy Department has been able to make up its mind, if not on all three of the categories which I have mentioned, at least on one of them, the application by the apprentice group instructors for non-industrial status, because I feel that it is high time that the hon. Gentleman's Department took some definite action and did not allow the matter to lie between the trade unions and the Treasury. Surely the hon. Gentleman is in command of his own Department? I hope that tonight he will be able to give me a satisfactory reply.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Adam Hunter: I rise to support what the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) said about apprentice group instructors. The hon. Lady has presented a picture as true as that which has been given to me over the past year. This came to me a little over a year ago, and because I have been in constant touch with the apprentice group instructors my knowledge of it is almost perfect. What the hon. Lady has said corresponds with my information.
I understand that this claim has been under consideration for 12 years. This is a very unfortunate situation indeed. The hon. Lady referred to the work done

by these apprentice group instructors. They would like to be brought into the linked departmental class, and I had much correspondence on this subject with my hon. Friend when he was Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy.
I have been to Rosyth Dockyard and observed these men at work. As the hon. Lady said, it is skilled work, and I think that it can be regarded as a specialised job. I understand that at the moment they have under them 536 apprentices, so I think it will be agreed that they are doing a big job.
It seems that this is a long-standing anomaly. The men feel that the negotiations have been far too protracted and that something should be done to bring them to a successful conclusion. During my correspondence with my hon. Friend I have received the greatest courtesy and even sympathy, but that is as far as I have got. He has from time to time enumerated the difficulties, and I appreciate them.
These apprentice group instructors in Rosyth Dockyard have been very patient and tolerant. I would like my hon. Friend to tell us that he is concluding negotiations to improve the status of this group of workmen. If he can tell us that tonight the hon. Member for Devonport and I will be happy to know, because it will be a very satisfactory conclusion for these men.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Ian Fraser: I want to add a few words in support of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter). This subject has no party interest in it. It is one in which many hon. Members, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs, the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) and the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) have been closely interested in during the years in which this matter has been negotiated.
This is a highly technical subject, the essence of which is the equality of status and pay which we hope to get for the apprentice group instructors as compared with the civilian instructors at


naval training establishments. All those who are interested in this matter will agree that this is the centre of the whole case. It concerns the comparison with the civilian instructors at naval establishments such as H.M.S. "Raleigh" at Torpoint and H.M.S. "Thunderer" at Manadon. It is a question of industrial and non-industrial status in the dockyards.
There is no doubt that the curricula which these apprentice group instructors are engaged in teaching their students is a very serious one. I should like to give as an example the case of a man who has to teach a syllabus which includes the use of trade tools, lectures on lessons of management, safety first, dockyard regulations, the use of oxy-acetelyne or propane or coal gas, air blow-pipes, metallurgy, annealing, the molecular structure of metals and alloys, pipe-bending, pipe fabrication, assembling and template work, and the use of all sorts of metals and alloys, such as copper, aluminium, steel, cupronickel and chromium.
These men are not engaged in any amateur approach to the matter; they are highly technical men, and after months of inquiry into the matter I cannot find that either in the technical quality of the syllabus which it is their duty to teach or in their technical knowledge they are in any important respect inferior to the civilian instructors at naval establishments with whom they wish to be compared, and who draw a considerably higher rate of pay.
This case dates back for eight or nine months. The Navy Department has always expressed interest in the matter. In a letter which I believe was written to the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs the Department used the phrase, "a cast-iron case", without committing itself as to the cast-iron nature of the case. We have been constantly told that the matter is under consideration and that it would receive careful consideration. We have been told that the Navy Department would carefully consider the views of these apprentice group instructors. We want to know tonight what has happened in that interval. There is no doubt that these men feel deeply and seriously about these things and that nothing which has passed since the time when we first raised it has affected the depth and seriousness

of their feeling. We want to know what is the present state of this situation.
I should be grateful, in particular, if the Minister would deal with certain specific questions. One point put to me by representatives of these men was that, in their belief, this matter has not yet been considered by the Admiralty Joint Industrial Council. That may or may not be right, but it is what they believe and what they say to me.
Secondly, they believe, whether rightly or wrongly—I await confirmation on this from the Minister—that the trade union side can give them little or no help in this matter. They feel that their representations through trade union channels have not had a satisfactory result.
We want to know what the Government feel about this case and what is the present state of these negotiations. We hope very much—I press this on the Minister—that we shall be able, as a result of tonight's debate, to come to a successful conclusion rather more rapidly than might otherwise have been possible. This is a highly technical and narrow matter. It concerns only a few people, but they are important to the Royal Navy, to the Services in general and to this country for that reason.
I have no doubt at all, having spoken to them over the months and again recently, about the depth of their feeling in this respect and about the importance of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion to the particular case which they have in mind. This is an inter-party case, supported almost equally from both sides of the House. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can give us a satisfactory answer.

9.23 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for the Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I am extremely grateful for the manner in which this issue has been raised tonight by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Ian Fraser) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter). There is certainly no party political issue in this. I can well understand the impatience both of hon. Members and of the apprentice group instructors particularly about the


long time it has taken to settle this issue.
The hon. Lady quoted a letter which I wrote in which I referred to representations "however impolitely expressed". That was a slightly pompous phrase to use. What happened was that the apprentice group instructors at Rosyth spoke to me very directly in naval language, which I understood.
This matter has had a very long history—it is not a matter of just a year or two—and I believe, looking back on that history, that had we been able to deal with this in isolation there would have been no problem. Unfortunately, it is in some ways part of a wider problem. This point about the apprentice group instructors is not just the narrow one which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton mentioned. It is part of a wider issue which we hope to see settled fairly soon.
The Chancellor's moratorium, which was quite justifiable, is now over and we are moving, I hope, towards the point at which we put proposals. Whether they will be accepted remains to be seen, but definite proposals will be put. There is no issue at all about the quality of the apprentice group instructors. They are jolly good lads doing a remarkable job. They are, however, involved in a wider issue because they are drawn from the ranks of charge men, who are the first line of management, again extremely able people. We like to draw them from the ranks of charge men and to interchange them so that they go back from instructing into the ranks of charge men and keep their know-how up to date. They are interchangeable not only in that way but in that they are paid the same rates and have the same grading as industrialists.
Hon. Members are right in saying that in one literal sense this is peculiar and that in other Government Departments and other Navy establishments the instructors are not industrial but non-industrial. Naturally, the staff side of the Navy Industrial Whitley Council and the A.G.I's themselves have been pressing hard for regrading.
But if this comparatively limited group of about 200 men were regraded, the question of a much wider group of charge men being regraded would have to be considered, too, and here

the trade union side, most anxious as they naturally are to improve the standing and wages of their members, came into the matter. They want to see pay raised, but they have objections, which I can well understand, against regrading.
The hon. Lady asked, why does not the Navy Department make up its mind? It has done. But I am no dictator, nor is the Navy Department. We have to try to see both sides of this issue. Had I been a dictator I should have settled this in one way or another the day after I came into office, but we cannot do it in that way. It would be wrong for any employer to try to dictate.
Since the end of 1964, which covers a full three months of office for me in my junior job, when I was directly responsible for this sort of thing, the Navy Department has been absolutely clear in its own mind that it was the right solution from a management point of view of the problem which faces the A.G.I.s. But because we are not dictators we listened, as we must, to representations from the trade union side of the Whitley Council asking us to discuss the whole problem of regrading and to try to agree upon limits of where regrading should take place and where it should stop. We have been doing this for a long time, and I am delighted to say that an official committee, after long deliberations, has made its recommendations. We still have to clear them with other Government Departments, but as soon as that is done—and it will be a very short time—we shall put these recommendations to the staff side and to the trade union side. Things are moving. I do not wish to say any more at the moment than that they are moving, and not before time.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the question of surgery assistants. This is a similar problem. It is another link-up in this rather tangled web. These are industrials, too, in the dockyards, though not elsewhere in the Navy Department and other Government Departments. At present a claim on their behalf for increased wages is being considered. It is before the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council at the moment. In considering that claim we are looking carefully at the qualifications which are needed for this job and at the duties involved. In the light of what is now being considered we


will make our suggestions about pay increases, status and regrading, but I must warn the House that there are difficulties of regrading here which are very much the same as they are right through this sphere.
Both issues which have come up tonight—and the case affecting metal polishers—are already being dealt with, I know slowly, by the normal procedure. The proceedings have been slow, partly because of the complexity of the job, partly because of the wide divergence of view that is held on the staff side and the trade union side but perhaps more because of the determination of the Navy Department, whatever Government are in power, to try to get a solution which is reasonably fair to both sides in any dispute.
The machinery of the Whitley Council, which we have used for so many years, is, on the whole, the most effective negotiating machinery we have in this country. The relations between the Navy Department and the trade union side in the dockyards over the course of half a century have been extraordinarily good. I know that on this issue it has worked slowly, for the reasons I have mentioned, but I believe that very shortly we will be in a position to present proposals which should be accepted by both sides, and I hope and believe that they will be so accepted.

Orders of the Day — PORT DEVELOPMENT

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before I come to the subject of port development, and the question of the Port of Bristol, its future aspirations and the national consequence of those aspirations, I would like to put on the record a question which I wish to pose to the Government and about which I have given notice to the appropriate Minister.
It is a brief question and concerns the proceedings earlier today on the much drawn-out discussions on the Building Control Bill, now deceased, and the procedure which the Government propose to use while the House is dissolved and before a new Government are elected. The Lord President of the Council left the House, the nation and the building industry in some difficulty because he spoke at some length earlier about the

limit of£100,000 being the limit to which the Building Control Bill's provisions might be put.
I am sure the Government realise that the Bill as originally presented could be altered by Order to reduce the limit down to any amount, although as a result of Opposition pressure in Committee in that connection the sum of £50,000 was written in. We are still not in a position to know the Government's intention and I hope that the Whip or whoever is responsible on the Government Front Bench will convey this question to one of the Ministers in the responsible Department, remembering that I gave notice that I would ask this question this evening.
Having disposed of that point—without, I hope, trespassing too much on the time of the House—I come to the very important point which I and my hon. Friends want to raise, namely, the future of the Port of Bristol in the context of port development. I begin by saying that I put the subject down as "port development" so that anyone from any other part of the kingdom might feel able to give the House his views on the subject, because it is in the context of the whole national problem that we Bristolians, and Members for surrounding constituencies, are interested in the project of the Portbury Docks.
We have a historical background to this proposal in that the City of Bristol enjoys about a thousand years of history, and was for many hundreds of years the second city in the kingdom by virtue of its great position as a port, both importing and exporting. It is in the export field that we feel that the Portbury scheme has very special significance. The present Government have made more noise than any previous Government about the export trade, and this is a great opportunity to translate some of that noise into "dynamic action"—to use the Prime Minister's own phrase.
Bristol has a long and honourable history in the export trade. My own personal association with that trade is somewhat limited as far as shipping goes. My grandfather was a shipowner in Gloucester in a small way, though I no longer have any financial interest either in the shipping industry, or, indeed, in any of the fruits of his labours, due to the activities of the Inland Revenue.
From a family point of view, I can claim a very close connection with export from Bristol. One Sir Ferdinando Gorges, commemorated on the walls of a council house in Bristol as the father of American colonialism, was an ancestor of my mother, and I have discovered recently that my grandfather's sister, my great-aunt Clare, left Bristol in the 'nineties to work in a saloon in Salt Lake City, Utah. It is against this family background, and deep personal interest that I raise this subject.
No one should think that I was in any way prejudiced in favour of Bristol in that I had the good fortune to be born in a constituency represented by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—in a part of Cardiff called Llandaff. I was, therefore, born on the other side of the water from which a good deal of counter pressure has come in the matter of the Portbury Docks scheme.
If it is true that in the nineteenth century Bristol tried by all means in its power to surmount the position of its rivals, and that during that time, for one reason or another, the Port of Liverpool became large and prosperous, and Bristol now finds itself as one of the number of vitally important ports alongside the great Port of London. It is not in a spirit of provincial rivalry that we raise the subject of the Portbury Docks scheme here this evening—all this provincial rivalry is over. We are seeking to promote our scheme in the national interest.
The House would not wish me to give it a lesson in geography, and it is not necessary for me to give such a lesson to the Government spokesman. Nor is it necessary to go over all the benefits of this scheme, because we have the evidence of no less weighty a person than Lord Rochdale, who has not only made reports on the subject but made speeches on it up and down the land, and given it his unqualified approval. We believe that Portbury has unlimited possibilities to become the most modern port in Europe, that unrivalled facilities could be produced there and that it enjoys, and will enjoy, the finest communications to all parts of the United Kingdom. Now is the time to take this glorious opportunity.
This is no provincial scheme, but a grand design, something of tremendous national significance. We must set aside the views of the small-minded critics who rival us, who came late into the field and whose proposals are in no sense an alternative to what is suggested by the Port of Bristol. It is suggested that if Portbury is developed it will upset the pattern of industry in South Wales. In this half of the twentieth century many patterns have to be upset in the national interest. Here is the only opportunity we have to achieve anything like the export port of national significance that this country needs, and Portbury is the place for it.
In conclusion, I ask the Government one or two questions. I want to know why there has been further delay in coming to a decision. Will the decision be announced today? The Parliamentary Secretary looks somewhat evasive. I assume that because it is his business to answer this debate we shall have a disappointing reply. That is no reflection on the hon. Gentleman—far from it. Although it is always one's instinct never to give the Government any credit for anything, and I do not give them credit on this occasion, I have noticed that the hon. Gentleman has been busy at the Dispatch Box and has been given the unpleasant duty on other occasions of telling the House that nothing can be done.
Perhaps if we were to get the answer we seek the right hon. Lady the Minister would be answering this debate, so perhaps my question No. 2 is already answered. If not today, are we to be told the answer by 31st March? I put down a Question about this and received a rather evasive answer from the right hon. Lady. If we are to be told by 31st March, will the Minister herself announce the decision? Where will she announce it? If we are not to have an answer to that question, or if the answer is no, can we be sure that the Prime Minister will not attempt to use this as some sort of election stunt?
The Prime Minister had a happy knack at the previous election, before he gained office, of going round dockyard towns making pronouncements of one kind and another. Perhaps this would be an opportunity for him to come to Bristol and tell us that at last the Government have taken their courage in their hands


and have come to the right decision. We should like to know, lest anyone should think that it was out of some sudden tremendous enthusiasm for the national interest that the Government had decided to make the announcement during the election campaign. They have had plenty of opportunity to do so before. We have been very patient and far from offensive at Question time, when we have been told month after month that we must wait a little longer.
The reason this is the last contribution on a Bristol matter, so far as I can discover, in this Parliament, is that we believe for the City of Bristol and for the nation this is the most important decision the Government could take. I pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren), who has been even more active than I have in this matter and has raised it in the House on many occasions. He has obtained a vast mass of technical detail which is beyond one such as myself. There are present no fewer than three hon. Members vitally concerned in this question, including my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster). That shows that we attach tremendous importance to this scheme which is vital to the whole future of Bristol and, we believe, to the whole future of Britain.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) for introducing this subject of port development, and I support and reinforce what he has said. I want to deal with the subject not in any local or parochial spirit, but in some of its wider aspects.
I start by referring to the work of the National Ports Council. It was set up under the Harbours Act, 1964, and one of its most important duties was to advise on whether the Minister of Transport should consent to any harbour development schemes estimated to cost more than £500,000. One can see from its last annual report that it goes into these applications with a great deal of care and does a lot of work.
I have the last annual report with me. In paragraph 9, it says that the director of economics and statistics is responsible

for collecting and processing the information which is vital to the council's work, in particular the work of preparing a national plan, and for making appraisals of development schemes and other matters which the Council have to consider. The director of finance is responsible for such matters as financial appraisal of development schemes, advice on problems concerned with port finance, accounts and charges schemes, and also the council's domestic finances. The technical director advises on engineering and technical aspects of development schemes, and other problems which come before the Council.
I quote that only in order to show that when these matters are before the Council they are gone into with every care and great detail. We should pay tribute to the valuable work which the Council has done. It has not wasted any time. Last July it produced the document, which it describes as its interim plan, and in which it says in the synopsis what schemes it recommends should go ahead as quickly as possible, and that even so it must be some time before many of them bear fruit. It says that it is certain that additional schemes will soon have to be put forward as the need for improved and extended port facilities becomes more clearly seen.
The Council is sure that there is no danger of over-investment, that the arrears are serious and that the prospective growth of traffic is considerable. It mentions that this is the first attempt ever made to co-ordinate measures for port development on a national basis. One of the main points mentioned in the report is that for many years there have been two principal ports in this country, London and Liverpool, which have been predominant owing to the country's geographical distribution and that that state of affairs is likely to remain for as far as we can foresee.
It goes on to say that, owing to the happy expansion of our trade, there is room in this island for a third modern port which in some measure will relieve the congestion in London and Liverpool. One of the dominant questions raised in the interim plan is where that third port should be situated.
I do not think that this is necessarily a contest between Bristol and South


Wales. After all, there would be an arguable case for maintaining that the third port should be situated in Southampton Water. However, the Port of Bristol had one advantage, which was that it was first in the race in coming forward with a specific plan and definite proposals worked out in detail for the construction of a new port at Portbury. It is worth emphasising that Portbury is a scheme in being whereas the alternatives are no more than ideas which have yet to be worked out.
It is a pity that these issues should have become bedevilled by any kind of local politics. This would not have been so if the Minister had been more ready to accept the advice tendered to her by her expert body, the National Ports Council. The essence of the Council's task, surely, was to assess the relative priorities and advantages of different places, and it was after it had carried out this exercise and it had looked at all the alternatives, including various places in South Wales, that it came down in favour of its definite recommendation of Portbury. It seems to me that this gives the advocates of the Portbury scheme a clear advantage over the advocates of any scheme in South Wales.
The attitude of South Wales seems to me rather like the attitude of children who see another child about to be given a new toy. Their immediate response is that they would prefer to have the new toy themselves and take it away. To onlookers the argument seems to be all one way. The basic objections to a modern port in South Wales are that the sea approaches are full of shallow mud banks and one has to try to superimpose a new port on a lot of cramped 19th century urban development with insufficient space for any modern lay-out and with a pattern of narrow congested roads leading to the dock areas.
By contrast, at Portbury one has what the philosophers call a tabula rasa, a completely new virgin territory where one can make a fresh start. I see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport smiling. He may remember, as I do, the days when we studied the philosopher Descartes.
We have a complicated Parliamentary democracy. We have hon. Members who

write letters to St. Christopher House, where there are myriads of civil servants who eventually cause their Ministers to send polite replies to us on blue paper. But one thing which is sometimes lacking, is the ability of the people at the top to take bold and definite decisions. Against the background of the admitted need for the modernisation of our ports, foreigners and competitors in places like Rotterdam must stand amazed at the delays and the indecisions that there have been over this Portbury scheme. It is no wonder that we are losing ground in the continual competition that goes on between British and continental ports.
As I look round the Chamber, I am struck by the thought that we have all been here before on this subject. We were here on the night of 17th November last. The Parliamentary Secretary was present. Both my hon. Friends, the Members for Bristol, West and for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) were here, too. I shall not repeat what I said on that occasion. I said something about the right hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser) which, perhaps, was a shade unkind but which had rather a prophetic touch. I said that the right hon. Gentleman
ought to recapture the power to make decisions, or he should go."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 1298.]
Evidently, the right hon. Gentleman saw the force of that dilemma, and, being unable to recapture the power to make decisions, he chose the other alternative, or, perhaps, had it imposed upon him, and he went. Reigning in his stead, we now have the right hon. Lady. We still have the Parliamentary Secretary, faithful as ever. But are we any better off with the right hon. Lady than we were before? The answer to that question must be, "Not so far".
In the debate on the Adjournment last November, the Parliamentary Secretary said,
We have urgently to consider it"—
it being the Portbury scheme, and he said also that
there will not be very much delay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 1301–2.]
There has been only another four months' delay, but some of us feel that that is far too long. It is no answer for the


hon. Gentleman to say that, before that, there were 13 years of delay. These docks are not owned by the Government. They are owned by a variety of bodies, harbour trusts, nationalised industries and local authorities, and successive Governments have had to wait until these owners came forward with plans for a port development. This is what Bristol did in May 1964 now nearly two years ago. It did not follow that the scheme which Bristol put forward with confidence at that date would have been a viable scheme if it had been put forward some years before, when, perhaps, the traffic would not have justified such a large and adventurous investment.
The time for a decision on this matter has long passed. If the Minister of Transport cares at all for the modernisation of the docks, she must show action, not words—a phrase which we shall hear a great deal during the next three weeks. If she gives a favourable decision on the Portbury scheme, she will not regret it, and neither will the country in the days to come.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. David Webster: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) not only for raising this subject tonight, but for giving us such a fascinating vignette of the history of his family and those members of it, female and male, who left the country through the Port of Bristol. I am sure that the House was held spellbound by his account.
Also, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren), who has supported my hon. Friend and who, on frequent occasions, has had the tenacity to bring this matter before the House. I wish him success tonight.
I hope that we shall have a satisfactory answer from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who, with his colleague the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, has five debates on transport tonight. The two hon. Gentlemen seem to be doing a "Bootsie and Snudge" act, and I hope that this "Bootsie" will be a "Puss in Bootsie" who will give us something which will be satisfactory to the House and for the balance of the nation's trade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West rightly paid tribute to the National Ports Council, which grew out of the efforts of Lord Rochdale, under whose chairmanship it now stands, from the Rochdale Committee, as a result of which the 1964 Act was brought into being. As a member of the Standing Committee on that Bill, I know a little about it, and I do not think that I would wish to weary the House with some of the complicated aspects of the subject now.
I have ben round a large number of our docks, and what impresses me, or depresses me, is the fact that, except for the Port of Immingham, there has been practically no major entry lock built in this country to any major dock complex since the First World War. They are all named after Queen Alexandra, Queen Victoria, King Edward, and so on. These things are part of the investment of this country, and we must not forget that at least 95 per cent. of our exports go through docks which are completely out of date. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West has stated how much we are in competition over exports with the countries of Europe.
The Port of Bristol Authority is a civic authority. Bristol is unique in having the only major port which is municipally and civically owned. The original Rochdale Report states in paragraph 48 on page 22 that what is particularly significant is the fact that, compared with most British ports, the continental ports of Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp is undoubtedly an integral part of the municipal life and economy, and it states that this is evident from its local prestige, and is recognised in its financial arrangements and structure.
One of the things which we must stress is that there is a civic pride which goes right through the history of the merchant adventurers of Bristol. We are not asking for great benefit from the taxpayer in this matter. It is one which would be very largely financed by the Corporation of Bristol, which itself came forward with proposals before the Rochdale Committee was convened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples).
It is worth reminding the House of the history in this context. First of all, Bristol made the proposition to build this


new complex, which is a new concept in this country, across from the Avonmouth Docks at Portbury. This was put to the Minister before the Rochdale Report was presented in September, 1962. The Rochdale Report recommended—I hope that no one will say that the Conservative Government held it up—that the development of Portbury should be deferred or further considered; and that was agreed. But in July last year the National Ports Council recommended firmly that the proposal for constructing a dock at Portbury should be the subject of separate submission by the Council to the Ministry of Transport, and recommended that the Minister's approval for the scheme should be given.
This was a firm decision of the National Ports Council. So we have had, in the Prime Minister's sacred words, the "smack of firm government" here. But nothing at all has happened except that Members representing British Transport Docks Board ports have been exercising in Wales, but have apparently all gone back to their constituencies tonight.
This is a new concept for Britain. I have talked about the change of development from pre-1914. This is a concept on a green field site. One may look at all the other major dock areas, but it is not possible to find a green field site where one can have a completely new dock complex with completely new "roll-on roll-off" arrangements for vehicles and the modern handling techniques which we need if we are to be competitive with Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg. This is one of the major things which I commend to the House.
In that context, I should like to quote in aid a letter which I have received from a director of one of the larger companies which has sailings from Bristol. He states:
Quite suddenly there has been an 'explosion' in the volume of cargo moving by vehicles and trailers via 'roll-on roll-off' ships. No dockers are needed. No time is wasted packing and unpacking the ship. No pilferage and negligible damage occurs. The cargo never waits in dockside sheds and does not get lost; it is but rarely at rest. The ship achieves many more voyages each year.
The relevance of this is that general cargo could now be moved in containers or on pallets or in unit loads across the Atlantic from the United Kingdom and the Continent if the ports had 25-ton cranes"—

he states, in parenthesis, that three tons is the United Kingdom standard crane—
and if the United Kingdom ports had the many acres of space required for a container/trailer park such as exists at Port Newark, New York, U.S.A., where the organisation is computer controlled.
This is the clinching point:
Portbury gives the nation a unique opportunity of moving into the twentieth century as far as cargo handling is concerned. It is the only green field site linking a natural deep sea lane with a 1970/72 motorway system. 
For these reasons, there is a clear case in support of Portbury on these grounds alone.
It is not on those grounds alone that I submit the matter to the House, and I hope that we will get from the Minister a very satisfactory answer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, when in office, made a start with laying down the M5 from Birmingham to Bristol. We have the M4 from London to Bristol, the Severn Road Bridge coming across from Wales and the M6 north of Birmingham. So that there is an immense hinterland leading to the port. Portbury would make a tremendous change. It would be a port not only with excellent internal communications, but is the only one of the major ports adjacent to a motorway.
If one goes to the Port of London, as I have done many a time—and I have been grateful for the hospitality that I have received—one knows that when leaving the Ml it is necessary to travel for an equal length of time through London as one takes to get from Birmingham to the outskirts of London. This shows how bad communications are. If one tries to go from Birmingham to Liverpool, which is the other part of the St. Andrew's Cross, one again finds that the motorway does not go anywhere near the heart of Liverpool.
On the other hand, there will be a spur on the motorway which will go near to the Portbury complex. For this reason, the hinterland is a clear and useful one. But not only that. I come back to the analogy of the St. Andrew's Cross. If one looks at the industrial heart of Britain on the Birmingham and Black Country complex, and if we look at the St. Andrew's Cross, at the top left-hand corner one sees the Mersey ports, at the


bottom right-hand corner the Port of London, at the top right-hand Hull and Immingham, which are being developed, and at the bottom left-hand corner the Port of Bristol, with its excellent communications and good labour relations, marred by a recent event.
One of the great advantages from which the Atlantic trade would benefit is that if there is difficulty over loading or congestion in London, it is a shorter haul to Bristol. I do not consider that the fact that there is unused capacity in the South Wales docks justifies holding up the Bristol concept. I am told that the maximum tonnage which can be taken into Cardiff is 8,500 tons. There are also the Cardiff mudflats, which are moving the whole time and are most unsafe.
We have the excellent Bristol Deep right opposite my own constituency, with a very fine channel straight into it, unsullied, I am glad to say, by that wretched jetty the nationalised steel company was trying to build right across it. So we have this heartland of excellent communications, and we should use each section of our St. Andrew's Cross, which is the industrial complex of this country.
There is a problem of cost. I am told that the original estimate was for £27 million, including capitalisation of interest, to go up to £36 million. Bristol, as I have said, is an authority which can raise its own money, and has tremendous assets, and Bristol is a profit-making port, and it is not seeking a great amount from the Exchequer. Naturally, if there were anything going from the Public Works Loan Board they would, like human beings, apply, and take their chance in the queue.
But I will give this assurance with every confidence, and I give it to the House very seriously, and I am authorised to say this, that if my right hon. Friends are returned, as they will be, in three or four weeks' time, to that side of the House, we will, in due course, after consultation, after survey, and after all the legal complexities, authorise proceedings for such a port to be built. I feel that this is right for the country, that we should get away from being controlled simply by two major ports on estuaries at the north-west and south-east of this island, and that we should get a better balance of trade for this country, if we are to compete for the trade of the world on

which the future and prosperity of this country depend.

10.16 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to The Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): Let us return to reality. I must ask your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, to speak again. I hope that leave will be granted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I may have to repeat this request many times between now and conclusion of this Sitting.
I start by taking the test of action and not words. Let us see where we have firm Government. All right. In 1962–63 the total actual capital investment in the ports of the country was £14·9 million. In 1963–64 the total actual capital investment in the ports of the country was £14·7 million. It dropped. In 1964–65 the total actual capital investment in the ports of the country was £18·2 million, a substantial increase since this Government took power. The planned capital investment in the ports in 1965–66 is £29·9 million compared with £18 million actual last year, and £14 million under our predecessors.
Under the National Plan, in 1966–67 it will rise to £51 million, and in 1967–68, £63 million. These are funds which have been allocated and earmarked. The actual performance shows in 1964–65 a substantial increase in capital investment since this Government took Office, and the National Plan which foreshadows in six years an investment of £230 million plus in the ports of the country—necessitated by the fantastic past negligence in the last decade to modernise the ports and harbours of the country. These are the decisions which have been taken.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) asked for facts about the national ports and dock development. There are the facts. On the Port of London Authority's Tilbury development scheme to provide seven new berths authorised by the Ministry of Transport under this Government work has been put in hand to the tune of an investment of £10 million in the London docks.
Improvements to the Royal Edward Dock at Avonmouth have been authorised by my right hon. Friend to the tune of £750,000. Work on the new lock at Grangemouth is about to start, my right


hon. Friend having authorised the scheme and an investment of £7 million. Work is now in hand at Leith to the extent of an investment of £6 million, and we are in close discussion with the Leith Docks Commission about the improvement of conditions and facilities there.
Those are actions which have been taken to try to overcome the results of the negligence that we inherited. They are evidence of the colossal need that confronts the nation for enormous development to modernise and extend the port and dock facilities of the country, and they are evidence of the fact that we have put in hand a programme that is going to rise from £18 million of capital investment last year to a projected £63 million of capital investment in the year 1967–68, at least £150 million of capital investment in 14 major ports of the country, and over £230 million as projected in the Government's National Plan in the ports and docks of the country as a whole. It stands in stark contrast to the low level of investment of the past decade.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman said that I had asked him to read all those figures, but I did not. All the figures that he is reading out and all the projects that he has mentioned are part of a National Plan. Can he tell the House who initiated the National Plan, and can he also tell us where Portbury stands in that National Plan?

Mr. Swingler: We initiated the National Plan, of course. I was talking about the National Plan, which was so much decried last autumn by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I was talking about what is provided for in the National Plan covering all industry and all services in the country. It provides for a capital investment in six years of £230 million.

Mr. Peter Emery: It is a Socialist plan.

Mr. Swingler: I accept that. It is the National Plan, produced by the Socialist Government. When I talk about a capital investment of £230 million in the next six years being necessary in the ports and docks of the country, I am talking about what is provided for in the National Plan, produced last autumn, which was the work of this Government. I am not claiming that all the individual

schemes were the result of the work of the Government. It embodied many of the recommendations of the National Ports Council.

Mr. Emery: Thank you.

Mr. Swingler: But if the hon. Gentleman will accept the necessity for a national plan of capital investment in the ports as compared with other forms of transport and other industries and services, the figure that I was referring to of £230 million-worth of capital investment would modernise our ports and docks on a nationwide scale, and that is the figure which is given in the document called The National Plan.

Mr. Webster: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much of the authorised expenditure was approved before October 1964 and how much was approved after that date?

Mr. Swingler: The schemes that I have mentioned were approved by that document. They were approved by the Government. When I refer to the schemes for Tilbury, Avonmouth, Grangemouth, Leith and so on, I am referring to schemes which have been approved by my right hon. Friend.
I know that other schemes were approved before that. I have given the figures. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the acid test is action, not words. In 1963–64, capital investment overall in the docks and ports was £14·7 million. Last year, it was £18.2 million. I stand by stating that fact, and by the fact that we have now planned that in 1965–66 it must rise to nearly £30 million—£29·9 million to be exact—and that includes the important decision taken by this Government for the iron ore terminals in South Wales, one of which includes the scheme at Port Talbot which will involve an investment of about £17 million. Those are the decisions which were taken by this Government last year, and which were urgently necessary.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been suggesting that decisions have not been taken, and that they want more action. I am simply indicating, in, I hope, an objective and completely colourless sort of way, that these are the facts about capital investment by one Government and then by another, and the plans for


extra capital investment. The decisions in the National Plan for particular schemes affecting London, Avonmouth, Grange-mouth, Leith, and so on, were taken during the last 12 months.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may regard this as a modest performance. I think that compared with the previous 12 months, or even the previous five years, it is quite an ambitious programme, necesistated, I am sorry to say, by the fact that, as is now generally undisputed throughout the country, a tremendous effort must be made to modernise the ports and docks due to the fact that during the last decade there was not a tremendous effort to modernise them.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to do a Paymaster-General on us. I am sure he will concede that if, during the last 10 years, there was any lack of action in approving projects, it was not merely that period with which the House has to contend, but with a much longer one going back to the nineteenth century. Will not: the hon. Gentleman concede that all these so-called actions and decisions which he claims to have made are based on a survey carried out under the previous Government, and that the Portbury scheme is one of the most important which should be approved? Will the hon. Gentleman "come clean" and tell us his intention on that?

Mr. Swingler: I shall come to that. Hon. Gentleman opposite cannot have it both ways. I concede straightaway that it is not just a matter of considering the last few years. The problem is much more deep-seated than that. It goes back very much further. Those who come from areas in which there are docks and ports know that that is the fact, but if hon. Gentlemen opposite want to base themselves on facts, on decisions which have been taken, and on the capital which has been allocated, and argue about those matters, I think that we had better have the facts before us about what has happened, and what is projected.
I concede immediately that it is on the basis of recommendations made by the National Ports Council, and on considerations by the previous Government, that much of this is being done, though many would consider that these things should have been done very much earlier.

I am simply giving the facts about the capital investment schemes which have been considered, in order to get them into proper perspective.
I come now to the Portbury scheme. Let us be frank amongst ourselves about it. As I have said before from this Box, and I make no apology for saying it again, this is a most ambitious, enterprising, and imaginative scheme put forward in 1964 by the Port of Bristol Authority. Less than 12 months ago it was recommended to us by the National Ports Council. We had to consider it very carefully as a special project, not on a par with many of the other recommendations, because it was a question of principle—of deciding in favour of a third major liner terminal for the kingdom, and of investing capital that merely started with the sum of £27 million but involved very much more. It represented investment of a very different order of magnitude than anything going on elsewhere.
It is, therefore, right that this question should be considered very seriously in the context of the increasing demands for capital investment by all the ports in the country. We have to consider its effects on other parts of the country. I assert again that we recognise the merits of the scheme for Portbury that has been put forward. My right hon. Friend, like her predecessor, received the representatives of the Port of Bristol Authority recently and heard the case that they put forward. The Government are taking into account all those factors which point in favour of the Portbury scheme.
If we had taken a quick decision in favour of the scheme some hon. Members opposite would have said that we had moved with indecent haste. Because we have decided to receive representations from all those who might be affected, and all those who have alternative proposals to put forward—because this is a most important decision, involving an enormous amount of capital—we are being accused of procrastination.
This very morning I received an important and powerful deputation from a consortium of local authorities from South Wales who were concerned about their interests. It is right that we should take them into account. Hon. Members opposite are not united on this issue. I


do not know where the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) or the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box), is, but they have a Motion on the Order Paper asking us to reject the Portbury scheme. I make no point of that, because there are also varying opinions on this side of the House, based on local considerations.
This is a very important matter to the areas concerned, from the point of view of employment, and the attraction of an import and export trade. It is natural that they should be concerned, and one of the things that I want to say tonight—and which I told the deputation this morning—is that the Government have faith in the future of the ports of South Wales; that important investment was made in those ports last year, to the tune of £4 million, and that there are proposed improvements involving the expenditure of £20 million. That includes the iron ore terminals in South Wales.
Therefore, I hope that those who represent and are concerned about South Wales will appreciate that the Government have confidence in the future of its ports and its harbour developments. It is important that this should be made clear.

Mr. Webster: It is a little wrong for anyone in the House—I do not accuse the hon. Member of doing so—to say that there is a conflict of interest between South Wales and Bristol. Bristol is not a bottom loading port but ports in South Wales are. The cargo from the steel works could be put in the bottom of the ship, it could come across to Portbury, where it would be much easier to get a quick turn around with a complete load. This would be very efficient: there is no conflict of interest.

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Member realises, I think, that what we are most anxious about is that the question of establishing a third major liner terminal

should not be made a political football between the interests—

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Mr. Swingler: I should like to emphasise that on this point my right hon. Friend's predecessor and now my right hon. Friend have been anxious to receive representations from all the authorities concerned in Bristol in South Wales and in other port areas and of the National Ports Council in order that they can be studied and assessed and taken into account in the decision which has to be taken. A decision has to be taken, but we are not anxious that it should be taken in haste. We recognise that it is extremely important that we should get the value for the enormous amount of capital investment and that the decision should not be taken on the basis of the results of a conflict of interests between the authorities concerned, but that all concerned should see it as part of the general programme of increasing that capital investment in out ports and docks, which we are concerned to make.
I am not in a position to announce a decision on Portbury tonight. Further studies are being carried out following representations made from Bristol, from the authorities in South Wales and from other areas which have also put up proposals. A decision will be taken in the near future on the subject, but it is right, since we have had less than 12 months to consider this major decision, during which time we have substantially increased the capital investment in the ports and docks on other schemes, to take further time to ensure that the decision which is taken about a third major liner terminal is the right decision for the kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the straight question which I asked at the end of my speech? Will this decision be announced before 31st March or not, and who will announce it?

Orders of the Day — HOSPITALS, BERKSHIRE

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: As we appear to have had no answer to the question so ably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke)—I hope hon. Members will note that this has happened in a "time for decision"—perhaps we might pass to just as important a matter in Berkshire, and one which affects particularly the health and medical services of the whole of the region.
A medical dream started in Reading in 1958 and 1959, which, by hard and persistent work, by an immense amount of planning; and forethought—with medical staff and doctors meeting sometimes twice a week over 18 months—was finally turned into a planning reality. A new 600-bed hospital was envisaged, was planned and was accepted as being a major requirement for the whole of the Reading community, and to service the outlying areas of Berkshire, which is the fastest-growing area, in the greatest need of medical services, in the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
There are three absolute needs in Reading. The first is the need for more beds and the second is the need to raise what is sub-standard—and I will not describe how sub-standard or how much is sub-standard of the accommodation which has to be used in the hospitals servicing Reading. It is a wonder that the medical staff have been able to continue their work under those conditions, and it is a great tribute to them that they have done so without epidemics and without the service breaking down. The third need is for a fair deal for Reading and district hospitals. This is essential. Ever since I have been Member for Reading, since 1959, I have pressed for this. Accusations could be made against both parties at certain times, but it is essential that something constructive should be done for the future rather than waste any more time.
May I pay a tribute to the staff of the hospitals? Their work load over the last four years has increased by 18 per cent. while the available beds have increased by only 5 per cent. The efficiency of the hospitals cannot be questioned. The Royal Berkshire Hospital is perhaps the centre of the group and is regarded as the

centre of the area. By any possible statistical analysis, the efficiency of this hospital has increased even with the fantastically inadequate facilities which are available. Bed occupancy has risen from 84 per cent. in 1961 to nearly 88 per cent. in 1965. Discharges and deaths in general medicine have nearly doubled from 760 persons to 1,327. The total figures have risen over four years from 12,500 to nearly 14,500. With the shortage of beds the length of stay in Reading hospitals is shorter than almost anywhere else in the country, and the work load on the outpatients department has risen from 94,000 in 1961 to nearly 118,000 in 1965. The efficiency of the hospitals, by whatever standard they are judged, is beyond reproach and worthy of warm congratulations.
May I analyse the problem and see why the problem is so serious in Reading. It is imperative to recognise that Reading is one of the major parts of the Oxford Regional Hospital Board. In its statement to the Ministry of Health in 1961 the Oxford Regional Board said that "One factor which created a degree of quite distinctive urgency in the case of the Oxford Region is the pressure of demand on the hospital services owing to increasing population." I am concerned that in the provision of capital allocations that have been made for the next 10 years insufficient recognition has been given to the factor of population growth. Indeed, the provisional allocations were made before the population predictions for 1981 were known, and this seems to me to be absolute nonsense.
May I prove my case about population growth. It is interesting to see that of the 12 regional hospital areas, including the Metropolitan area, the Oxford region, of which Reading is part, is the second smallest. However, the absolute increase in population in the Oxford region is estimated over this period to be over half a million people—574,000. Although, as I say, the Oxford region is the smallest but one, this is the greatest percentage increase compared with any other area in the whole of the country.
The percentage increase in population in the Oxford region is estimated to be 32·5 whereas in the next major area, Birmingham, where there is an increase of 930,000 people, the percentage increase is only 18·7. In other words, the percentage increase in population in the


Berkshire area of the Oxford Regional Hospital Board is nearly 15 per cent. greater than the next largest area in the country.
The flabbergasting point is in the projected figures. It was originally suggested that the regional hospital board should plan for an increase of just under 16 per cent., and now this figure is more than doubled and the board is having to plan for a 32½ per cent. increase.
I turn to the proposed total capital allocations, and it is a matter of public interest that these figures should be made known. People have a right to know this. The total capital allocation which at the moment is projected for the Oxford Regional Hospital Board for the period 1966–67 to 1975–76 is £34½ million. For the whole of the region this is £3·46 million a year. I have shown that the percentage increase of population is twice as great as anywhere else in the country. Therefore, surely the total percentage capital allocation should match the great need of this region. But fantastically that is not the story.
The Government are in charge of these allocations. Whether they made these allocations originally or not, the fact is that they are now responsible for them, and the figures have not been "upped". I have been able to check up today that these figures still apply. It will do the Minister no good to say, "I have not had time to deal with this" or "It is not my responsibility because we have been in government for only 15 months". If I have anything to do with it, he will not be there after the General Election.

An Hon. Member: Nor will you.

Mr. Emery: That is what hon. Gentlemen opposite said before the last election. I was able to prove them wrong, as I will do this time. Whatever they may be thinking in their wildest dreams, they will have to put up with me in the House for a great deal longer.
I return to what is fact and not prediction; the position of the growth of the total capital allocation to all the hospital regions. Including the Metropolitan region, the Oxford region is tenth out of 12. There are only two allocations smaller than that projected for Oxford. Indeed, areas which are much lower, with total increases in population of only 9·1

per cent., such as Newcastle, where the population increase is about half that of Reading, are getting a sum a great deal larger than Reading.
Consider the various allocations. In the Metropolitan region it is £161 million; Birmingham, £69 million; Sheffield, £68 million; Manchester, £60 million, Southwestern, £46 million and Liverpool, £45·8 million. There is a tie between Newcastle and Wales, with £42·2 million. Leeds gets £39 million and then, and only then, we get to the Oxford Board, including Reading, with £34 million.
Why is this state of affairs so chronically wrong? One must make comparisons. The allocation of capital per additional head of population shows that the Oxford Regional Hospital Board area is at the bottom of the list. The average allocation of capital per additional head of population for England and Wales is £100. In Reading it is £60. In Newcastle it is £141 and in Wales—why Wales, I do not know—it is £200.
If one considers the allocation of capital per additional bed, one finds that, again, the Oxford region is at the bottom of the list. The allocation of capital per additional bed in Wales is £23,000. It is one-third of that in the Oxford region, which gets £7,095. It is obvious that the Ministry is totally neglecting this serious problem in the Reading and Berkshire area.
I pay tribute to the Reading Evening Post, which ran a series of articles just before last Christmas. My only possible criticism of those articles would be that they were not hard-hitting enough. They were factually and realistically presented and resulted in a great deal of the public unrest and concern which has been evident over this problem. It is a problem which might previously have been considered to have been swept under the carpet. It is now in the open. I see the Parliamentary Secretary laughing. He would not laugh if he saw the out-patients department at the Royal Berkshire Hospital. He would not laugh if he could see the queues, or could realise the time and waste involved in attending the outpatients department in conditions—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I want to make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman, to the House and


to the people in his area that when I was laughing I was not laughing about the substance of the debate but solely about the electoral fortunes of the hon. Member.

Mr. Emery: Then the hon. Gentleman will laugh on the other side of his face about that as well. He would not, as Parliamentary Secretary, allow these conditions to occur in his constituency, and it is a matter of the greatest seriousness that this sort of tragedy could happen anywhere at the moment.
Perhaps I might illustrate two aspects of this tragedy. Firstly, it would seem that the shortage of beds is considerably limiting some very specialist work being carried on by Dr. Hunt-Williams in the treatment of the young hard-of-hearing. This subject is considered to be so serious that the members of the Reading Hard-of-Hearing Association—which is a very small body—have clubbed together to raise £300 as a sort of self-help for their own people in trying to obtain extra beds in order that Hunt-Williams can continue his work.
The position in the E.N.T. department is that the number of operations has risen from 900 in 1956 to just on 2,000 in 1965. This is the growth of the work; this is the size of the problem. Can the Minister in all seriousness tell me that he thinks it right—with his views on socialised medicine—that it should be necessary for the sort of voluntary scheme I have outlined to have to be introduced in order to help hard-of-hearing young children, who could be affected for life if treatment is not given at an early stage?
If the hon. Member laughs at my electoral prospects, let him look at some of the promises that were made by the Socialist candidate at the last election—who is again attempting to come to this House. He led the electorate of Reading to believe that the whole problem would be dealt with quickly and expeditiously if the Minister should be sitting on that side of the House as a Socialist. Some of those asurances given were words with no action, and I believe that they will be so judged.
The waiting-list problem is of the greatest interest, because the work of the consultants and the hospital has, in ratio, been decreased, but, in fact, there are

such problems that weekly I have letters from constituents asking whether I can take action to see that their operations are dealt with expeditiously. I had a letter only yesterday with regard to an operation for prolapse. The lady is greatly concerned and worried and asks whether I can do anything to help. On the maternity side, there is considerable worry that there are not enough beds available, although I grant to the Minister that a certain amount has been done in that respect, to which I shall refer later.
One of the great tragedies is that in this hospital a considerable amount of work has been done on a special care unit. There is extra work for the unit, which has come into being with a great deal of work by the consultants. This is not a single unit as one envisages it in the United States; the special care unit is spread round the hospital. Equipment is trundled from one ward to another and the beds are placed in any ward where the patient happens to be. Would the Minister tell us if he thinks that is right or something which should be corrected?
I ask the Minister whether the Ministry has come to any decision about a medical school as one of the improvements to be effected at Reading. There is a very strong case for a medical school in Reading. One of my hon. Friends has pressed for the establishment of a medical school in the Wessex area. If it is imperative that only one can be provided, will other hospital areas be considered? Although Reading is often considered to be in the Wessex area, for hospital purposes it is in the Oxford Regional Hospital Board area. There could not be a stronger case than that for Reading to be considered in this respect. The university on the other side of the road, has nearly all the ancillary facilities for the creation of a new medical school. It seems only common sense when the Government have announced the need for new opportunities, to see the establishment of a medical faculty at Reading where there is a whole range of biological studies more or less complete except for medicine itself.
With the vast extension and the creation of a 600-bed hospital, the money we are spending on that and the facilities at the university across the way, there


could be a link established which would be second to none in any other university and hospital. The matron of the Royal Berkshire Hospital would not allow me to put my foot in the hospital again if I did not present her pet plea for in parallel a faculty of nursing whereby post-graduate work could be carried on for nurses trained at the hospital. This would be similar to that at the Royal Hospital and the University in Edinburgh.
There is a matter which could affect the saving of money. Because of the shortage of pharmacists in certain areas, in order that prescriptions shall be properly filled in, hospitals may use form E.C. 10 H.P., which allows prescribing to be done at a retail chemist's. In my opinion, there has been an increase of nearly £30,000 this year in the drug bill in the Reading hospitals. Probably the greatest cause of this has been shortage of pharmacists to deal with prescribing by hospital authorities. I am informed that the extra cost met by having the prescriptions filled in by retailers would allow not only a major increase in pharmacists' salaries, but would also ensure a considerable saving by the Government and the hospital management board. Why can we not have some action on this matter. In special circumstances such as these, does not the Minister have power to act to save the taxpayers' money?
One of the main tragedies of this situation which has resulted from the postponement of a major new hospital in a large block—"skyscraper" is the term which has been used—is that more and more temporary work is being put in hand for Reading by the regional board. This work includes a temporary accident department in Battle Hospital costing £160,000. Yet the accident unit is to be moved to the Royal Berkshire Hospital at a date now projected as being in 1968–69. In this temporary accident department there is no pathological unit, no "path" services at all. They have to be provided by the Royal Berkshire Hospital, a matter of a drive across town. There is no complete blood bank, essential in a hospital unit of this kind. Of course, there are blood stocks, but not a complete blood bank able to deal with all the different varieties of blood grouping. Yet this is a unit serving the whole of the area around Reading and with acci-

dent cases coming from the A4, the Newbury Road and the roads from Windsor which are frequently littered at the weekends with accidents, often major accidents.
Only last week, a temporary outpatients' building was started at a cost of £90,000. The staff does not know what is to happen to this unit when the new hospital is built. Building this temporary accommodation is a matter of some waste. There was an outcry about the lack of maternity beds and there is now a temporary maternity unit costing £100,000. It is suggested that eventually this unit will be usable for some other purpose, but most of the staff say that that is medically impracticable.
I calculated that £350,000 was being spent on temporary buildings, but when I got in touch with some of the consultants and said what a catastrophic figure this was, I was told that I had missed out something. There is also a temporary X-ray unit costing another £50,000. Therefore, instead of getting on with the major building, which was originally planned to start in 1965–66, we are to have £400,000 spent on temporary buildings. Surely the Minister can appreciate the tragedy of fractionalising this vital centre for medical services throughout Berkshire when he ought to be going forward with the major scheme.
I conclude by asking two questions. There is growing frustration among the doctors, the patients and the nurses. One has only to visit the hospital to sense this feeling of frustration. The staff was quite prepared to serve in all sorts of bad accommodation when in the early 1960s it was thought that the major new hospital was going forward.
This was the dream to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. They were willing to undergo any conditions with the knowledge that Reading would have one of the best hospitals in the country if not in Europe. Now they see that this will not happen and that the Government are doing away with the central plan, having different parts of the hospital developed on different sites, and cancelling parts of the project. The building of the laundry was delayed—a major cancellation—with the result that a consultant told me today that the laundry


service was so bad that he had to operate on different days using the same pair of white trousers. This may sound a foolish analogy, but in these days in matters of hygiene this should not be allowed to happen in any hospital let alone a hospital of this reputation.
It is the frustration that goes with this that brings the demand on the region and on the Minister to patch up facilities which ought now to be in the process of being scrapped in expectation of the development of the new hopsital. Will the Minister use his special powers to ensure that there is a greater allocation of money to the Oxford Regional Hospital Board? The allocation of £34·5 million over 10 years should be increased over the same period by £20 million. This would be a matter of only £2 million a year. It would still leave the Oxford region in total allocation way below most of the other regions and the amount spent on each new bed way below the cost in Wales and many other areas. This would mean that one would have the money to proceed with existing plans to continue with expansion not only in Reading but in Wokingham and other parts of the region.
I believe that even in the electioneering mood of the present Government there is little chance of obtaining any promise on that first request. I therefore have a second request. In order that it may not cost the Government any more money, will the Minister give a firm undertaking that he will see that within the proposed allocation of £34·5 million payment is stepped up in the first five years of the period 1966–7 to 1975–6? If the Minister will not give any more money to meet the present need, will he bring forward £1 million a year in the first five years and decrease the allocation by £1 million a year in the last five years? This would allow the hospital to get on with more of the job.
However party-political some exchanges may have been tonight, I want to forget party politics for a moment, because this improvement in the hospital service is a crying need of the whole population of this area. The need goes much wider than my constituency. It is not a matter of party politics. It exists, and the growth factors are getting worse, not better. Will the Minister give a sym-

pathetic hearing to the case which I have put and consider either the immediate grant of more money to this hospital or, failing that, the reallocation of the proposed grants so that much more can be received during the first five years of the period?

11.16 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) from what I might describe as an adjacent point of view. Although Reading, for which he speaks so eloquently, lies in a regional hospital board area different from that covering the adjacent area of East Berkshire, which is my principal concern, the points which my hon. Friend has made about Reading reflect almost exactly the problem in the whole of East Berkshire, that is, the astonishingly steep rise in the growth of population.
Although we are on the eve of a General Election, I say at once that I am not here trying to score party political points. Any Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary are faced with great problems, no matter what party is in power. They have not got unlimited funds, and they must see that the funds they have are properly spread. Their second problem is that the equipment of any modern hospital is so complicated and so expensive that they must avoid unnecessary duplication.
It is, so to speak, a judgment of Solomon to decide where to extend, to rebuild or to build anew in the hospital programme. If I were faced with the question whether it was wiser to spread the butter properly on a few pieces of bread, or to spread it thinly and inadequately over a great many pieces of bread, I should be very much inclined to come down in favour of spreading the butter properly over the few.
The present hospital programme for East Berkshire is based, broadly speaking upon an extension of the main King Edward VII Hospital in Windsor, the rebuilding or building anew of the Wexham Hospital at Slough, which is in Buckinghamshire, with geriatric patients still going to Upton, also in Buckinghamshire, and an extension of the Heather-wood Hospital in Ascot, which deals for the moment with the population of


Bracknell, although my guess is that in the very near future, again because of the steep rise in population at Bracknell, other problems will arise there. That is the plan at the moment.
It so happens that the Maidenhead area finds itself, almost by the accident of geography, in a vacuum, but it is in that area that by far the biggest rise in population has occurred and is likely to develop in the next 10 or 15 years. When one puts the Borough of Maidenhead together with the Cookham rural district, the estimated population by the early 1970s is more than 70,000. The problem with the hospital accommodation in Maidenhead is that at the moment it is split into three. There are St. Mark's Hospital, which is really the old Poor Law institution furbished up a bit; the Maidenhead General Hospital, which has a large number of hutted wards; and the Canadian Memorial Hospital at Cliveden, which takes a very large proportion of the maternity cases. These are all highly efficient, but they are not very easy to manage together because there are several miles between them and the services are all split up as well, and all this in an area where there is a very steep growth of population.
While I am certain that the regional hospital board was right to decide, whatever else it may have decided, to build on to the Windsor Hospital, because that is already a well-established all-purpose hospital of high repute, the fact remains that, for a number of reasons into which I will not go now, the growth of population in the Windsor area in the next 10 or 15 years cannot be anything like as steep as it is likely to be in the Maidenhead area. So one gets to the stage when if Windsor Hospital is to be the main general purpose hospital for the area, from the far end of the Cookham rural district patients and their relatives may have to travel 10 or 12 miles to the Windsor Hospital, and this with a very inadequate and eccentric bus service, which presents very considerable difficulties.
The Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough, a few weeks ago, to receive a deputation from the local authorities concerned, and we discussed a number of these problems. I would not dream of pressing him for an answer tonight, for

it would be unfair to do so, and this is not the right occasion to press for that sort of answer. But my feeling is that he or his Department—we do not know what is to happen in this way in the future—must begin to work out whether in the next phase of the hospital building programme consideration ought not seriously to be given to the arguments in favour of building a hospital where the density of population is known to be great now and by any reasonable forecast is almost bound to increase. I should simply like to know this evening the direction in which the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry is working in this respect. That is all I ask. It would not be fair to ask anything other than that in a debate of this type at this time.
I would again express my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary for the great trouble that he has taken over the problem during the last few weeks, when he and I have had many conversations, quite apart from the deputation which I took to him.

11.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I should like to deal, first, with the question raised by the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), because I might be able to dispose of it fairly quickly. The hon. Member accepts, as he said, that I have some concern about the developments in the Maidenhead-Windsor area. I have additional concern, because I, like the hon. Member, represent an area which has similar transport difficulties. I appreciate, and there is an increasing awareness, that the transport difficulties are a real and serious problem in rural areas of the kind of which we have been speaking.
I would not want to contradict anything that the hon. Member has said about our recent discussions. Apart from the time when he brought a deputation to see me, the hon. Member and I have discussed these matters on two or three occasions in the corridors and elsewhere in the House.
As the hon. Member knows, I listened carefully to the case advanced by the members of the deputation. I told them that I would go into the points they had


made, with particular reference to whether it would be fair to proceed on the basis of the plan to extend the Windsor Hospital as population development in the area was more likely at Maidenhead and Cookham.
I should, however, make it plain that the regional hospital board has been doing what the hon. Member said ought to be clone, and that is to seek to avoid serious duplication of services in a particular area. The problem facing the regional hospital board was that there were certain services at the Windsor Hospital which could be an integral part of a new or developed hospital, but that if the site for the hospital were changed from Windsor to Maidenhead there would be additional cost and wastage of services, because that would mean a duplication of the services at Windsor and, possibly, the non-use of existing services there.
I should like the hon. Member to know that even though I considered the regional hospital board to have a valid argument, I accepted that his deputation put forward reasoned and cogent arguments and a case that had to be examined. The case has been examined in my Department and we have decided to look closely at the problem and to ascertain whether, in practice, it is possible to make any change in the plans for the area.
In saying this, I hope that the hon. Member—I feel sure that he will not—will not take this as being anything like a firm promise to deal with the situation in that way. I assure him, however, and I think that he will accept this assurance, that I have attempted to deal with the problem in the way in which he would want to deal with it—in other words, as objectively as I can, but taking into account the convenience of patients and visitors as well as the convenience from the viewpoint of the regional hospital board.
Now I turn to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery). In his last few remarks he said that he felt that this was not a matter about which party points should be scored. I wish he had felt that when he began his speech, and for seven-eighths of the speech which he delivered, because I felt that at one time he was putting a little electoral

hysteria into the case he was presenting. It is true that we had a little bit of fun about his small majority. It may well be that he will come back here after the General Election. I hope he will not, but if he does—well, we shall be able to put up with him on that side of the House, once those circumstances arise.
I am not making excuses, and I shall deal with the case as far as I possibly can, but I wonder sometimes whether hon. Members, who discuss the possibility of our having built substantial hospitals in the period in which we have been in power, really think of the tremendous amount of planning which has to be done before we can get a hospital, not off the ground but off the drawing board. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend, for some of the reasons which the hon. Gentleman advanced tonight, decided that the only way we could deal with this situation in its entirety, and in a way in which we could be assured of the right type of hospital service in the future, was to review fully the planning of hospitals and to scrap the plan which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
There was reason for this, and the reason for it was not very hard to find. When we looked at the plan we discovered that, on the basis of project after project, on a clear analysis of the first phases—the hon. Gentleman will accept that we build large hospitals in phases—the costings, on taking into account changing monetary values from the time the plan was first put down to the present time, were really all at sea.
It is true that when the Government, no matter of what party, decide to do a review of this kind it is a long and protracted sort of investigation. My right hon. Friend initiated this review, and the regional hospital boards have gone into the whole question of what they think will be their requirements over a given period of time, and we are in a position to examine their findings. The hon. Member will ask, how long is it going to take? It will possibly be one or two months yet. I should not think it will be much more than one or two months. I am not giving any firm commitment on that. If the hon. Gentleman


just thinks for a second he will know that if a Minister is examining proposals which have been placed before him it would be presumptuous of the Parliamentary Secretary to give a firm commitment on behalf of his right hon. Friend.
We have not taken too long about this plan. If the hon. Gentleman cares to make a comparison with the previous plan—and I am not being critical about what took place on a previous occasion—he will find that the time scale is very much the same.
There is no dispute about pressure on the hospital services in Reading and Berkshire. Quite clearly, the hon. Gentleman put his finger on the kernel of the problem when he referred to the population explosion in that part of the country. I want the hon. Gentleman to realise that my right hon. Friend, my Ministry, the Oxford Regional Hospital Board and myself are just as concerned with the problem as anyone else. The explosive growth of the population in the county generally and the area in and around Reading in particular is really the kernel of the problem with which we are faced.
It might be as well to recognise that the hospitals in the Reading Group now serve a population of 340,000. In practice, that is an increase of 70,000 over the last 15 years. The growth is continuing, and we estimate that by 1981 the population of the area will reach 500,000. Obviously the hospitals will be under great pressure for some time in the future.
My right hon. Friend has made it clear on a number of occasions that in attempting to assess the requirements of all parts of the country, when looking at the hospital building plan which we are now in process of formulating, not merely is there bound to be concern for populations as they are at present, but, in arriving at the types of services that will be required in a particular area, consideration will have to be given to the estimated population projections.

Mr. Peter Emery: I accept immediately what the hon. Gentleman says about his acceptance of the population explosion in the area. But when he says

that his Ministry is cognisant of it and wants to be able to deal with it, may I ask him why, realising that demand, it was necessary to cancel this major project? It was one of the few cancellations in the whole country, and the result has been that the hospital service for the whole area is now at breaking point. Surely that is not realisation of a major problem?

Mr. Loughlin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to make a speech every time that I stress a point with which he is not in entire agreement. I will come to some of the things that he talked about in a moment. I agree that the staff of these hospitals are doing magnificent work, often in difficult conditions, and with poor facilities. I would not like a degree of frustration to become widespread in these hospitals. I know that the medical profession and the nurses take a lot, and have taken a lot over a long period of time. I do not want to make party points, and I am not going to make a party speech tonight, but, in view of what the hon. Gentleman said, I ask the staff at these hospitals not to get too frustrated, to be a little patient, as they have been in the past, so that we can provide them with the facilities which they ought to have.
I agree that the hospitals are coping with a tremendous increase in all sorts of ways, and we accept the need to push ahead urgently with the developments planned for Reading. I should stress that a good deal has already been done. It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying that the projects which have been carried out in the past, the projects which are now being carried out, and those which will be carried out in the immediate future, are a waste of money because we should be using the money to build a new hospital. I repeat what I told the hon. Gentleman earlier, that this work has to be done. How can we deal with a population explosion simply by waiting until a whole new hospital is built? After all, 15 months is not a long time in this context. If this hospital had been started a number of years ago, it might well have been valid to argue that we need not put in what the hon. Gentleman referred to as emergency and temporary projects, but if, as things are, we do not do something like this, and we wait for another five years until the hospital is


built, how will we deal with the present population explosion?
Over the last few years the regional hospital board has completed more than 20 schemes at a cost of just under £500,000, and I believe that the regional hospital board was right to complete those schemes. A start has been made with the development of the Royal Berkshire Hospital as the main acute hospital for the area. Work is in progress on a new ophthalmic department, at a cost of over £500,000, and on a new out-patients' department costing over £100,000. Work is due to start this summer on a new maternity department which will cost £1½ million, and a number of minor projects have started, or are about to start, to improve the services and residential accommodation at the hospital. Developments have also taken place at Battle Hospital. The maternity unit there has been extended at a cost of over £100,000, and work is nearly complete on a new casualty and X-ray department costing nearly £200,000. A new operating theatre is being built, and numerous minor works are in hand.
On the maternity side, the hon. Gentleman accepted that additional beds and improved facilities had been provided. Apart from the major improvements at the Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals, a general practitioner maternity unit has been built at Townlands Hospital, and a new maternity unit at Wokingham, and the Dellwood Maternity Hospital has been extended. Altogether these projects have provided 60 additional maternity beds. The number of births in hospitals in the area has risen from 3,800 in 1961 to 5,800 last year, and it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to talk in terms of not doing this work and waiting until the major hospital is started.
Plans for further developments are now under review. Broadly, the intention is to press forward with the redevelopment of the Royal Berkshire Hospital as the major hospital centre for the area, and with further improvements at Battle Hospital.
The timing of the major projects will depend on the outcome of the current review of the Hospital Plan, but I can assure hon. Members that there is no complacency either on the part of the regional hospital board or of my Depart-

ment about the situation in Reading and Berkshire. We are fully aware of the need to press ahead with major hospital developments to meet the growing population in the area.
We can bandy figures about, but I should say that some of the figures used by the hon. Member—related, as they were, to the smallest region in the country—drew what may well be a very false picture. I do not say that the hon. Member did this intentionally, but if a comparison is made region by region it is easy to draw a false picture if special care is not taken.
The hon. Member was concerned mainly with two points. The first related to the 10 year capital allocation at present projected, and whether that could be increased to deal with the increase in population. My right hon. Friend is bound to take into account the estimated projection of population growth, in the revision of the Hospital Plan. I cannot commit him, but if the estimated projections of populations are accepted there may be need for an increased allocation not merely for the area that we are discussing but for all areas affected by the population explosion.
The second point concerned the question whether or not there was a possibility of increasing the total in such a way that there could be a pushing forward in the first four years. I cannot give an undertaking of the kind asked for, but I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Member's suggestion and assure him that we will do everything we can to meet the requirements of this area, because the regional hospital board and ourselves are as concerned about it as he rightly is.

Orders of the Day — RATES

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: We have had a wide variety of debates on this Bill. I now want to turn to the question of rates, and what I submit are the inadequacies of the Government's proposals on the subject.
At the last General Election a significant pledge was made by the Labour Party that it would provide the electorate with early relief if it were returned to


power. It was significant because it tipped the balance in favour of the Labour Party to the extent of many thousands of votes. Many people believed that this pledge would be honoured, and they were entitled to do so, because it seemed to be a fair and logical one. But I believe it was an unfair and cynical one, because nothing has been done for the vast majority of ratepayers in the last 17 months—ratepayers who were led to believe that there would be quick and substantial help if a Labour Government were returned.
Last week, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I asked Questions of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The Minister replied:
Proposals for four major alleviations of the rating system are on their way to the Statute Book. First, domestic ratepayers are to be derated to the extent on average of about half the usual annual increase in rates. Second, empty property is to be rated. Third, all domestic ratepayers will be able to pay their rates by instalments. Fourth, rate rebates are being provided for 2 million ratepayers of limited means at a cost to the Exchequer of £22 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 1071.]
Let us analyse those statements in some detail, because it is impossible to appreciate them in the quick cut and thrust of Question Time.
First is the granting of rebates for 2 million ratepayers of limited means. This, of course, refers to the Rating Bill with which we have been concerned and which will became law tomorrow if it receives the Royal Assent. That is well and good, but it is an inadequate and badly drafted Bill, which we criticised strongly on Second and Third Readings and in Committee, but whose broad objectives we support. But it is a pathetically small improvement, as any expert on rating knows.
In a country where the average wage is rising month by month, in days of mounting inflation, it means that only the poorest people—those below standard incomes—will be helped. It is right that they should be helped, but there are thousands who can be described as anything but rich who will not be helped by the Bill and who are, in fact, ignored by

it. In effect, they will get nothing, and as a result of the subsidy given to the poorest people by the Bill, they will have to pay more by way of their rates. I am thinking also of my own constituency in this respect, because as it is a typical urban area, the average wage there must be between £15 and £25 a week.
Last year, the ratepayers suffered a swingeing increase in the local rates. In the last 24 hours I heard that the Socialist-controlled Hounslow Borough Council has put up its rate by another 1s. 2d. What can the vast majority of my consituents expect from this Government by way of rates relief? What can the vast majority of the constituents of any hon. Member expect? Nothing whatever. I should have thought that this was a major exposure of an election pledge. We have had many debates in the last week or so about broken pledges, but surely this is the greatest broken pledge of them all.
I turn to the third alleviation which the Minister of Housing and Local Government mentioned. He said that all domestic ratepapers would be able to pay their rates by instalment. This, also, is well and good, and I support it, but paying on the "never-never" has never stopped anyone from paying the full amount in the end. While it may be a help, it still means that, annually, many people will be paying more in rate than in previous years.
The Minister also said that empty property is to be rated. This may be worth trying, but I doubt whether it will bring in very much. At best, it is unlikely to bring in enough to make a significant different, particularly for individual ratepayers.
Perhaps the Minister's most important proposal was the fourth which he announced with all the glittering election appeal which he could muster. This was his panic decision—after so many promises over the last 17 months—that he would do something for all ratepayers. He says that he is doing something here but, in fact, he is only making another promise and hoping for the return of a Labour Government. He said in the reply from which I quoted:
…domestic ratepayers are to be derated to the extent on average of about half the usual annual increase in rates.


That sounds very good superficially, but what exactly does it mean? A large number of people has not fully understood its significance. It means that when Socialist-controlled councils—like Hounslow and many others—through imprudent policies or inefficient management, have to raise their rates by 1s. 2d., the Government will lop off 7d. and shove the rest on general taxes. There will still be a rise of 7d. in the £ or more each year. Ratepayers can expect an increase in rates year after year. My hard-pressed constituents, and those of my hon. Friends, will have to meet this increase while general taxation, too, goes up, particularly if the Labour Party remain in power.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: From where will the £100 million, which his party is offering the electors as a bribe, come if not from general taxation?

Mr. Dudley Smith: It ill becomes the hon. Member to talk about bribes in view of the number of bribes offered by his party. If he will contain himself I will come to the Conservative Party's proposals. When he has known me a little longer he will realise that I try to be constructive in my remarks.
People will be affected seriously by the rise in general taxation as well as by the rise in rates. There is also a great danger that authorities, particularly Socialist authorities, in the knowledge that the Government will repay half the increase, will say, "It does not matter whether we put up the rate by 1s., 1s. 6d., or 2s. in the £". There will thus be a danger of steeper rises and less slashing of estimates than would otherwise have been the case.
The Minister's new statement is intended to mislead the electorate into supporting the Labour Party. When the facts are finally realised, the right hon. Gentleman, who prides himself on being the "director of psychological warfare" for his party, will be exposed and can expect to lose his job and to be passed to some other Ministry.
What else has he to offer? The Minister made vague noises about the need to change the system. He indicated that this will be considered after the report has been received on the reorganisation of local government. Does anyone believe that that will be in the next five-year

Parliament if the Labour Party wins the Election? I do not think so, and I am sure that many other people do not think so. I can see all too clearly that this will be pushed off because it will be difficult to administer, and it will be brought forward as another election pledge—if it were, unfortunately, another Labour Government, this time for five years—in 1969–70, as a last-minute thought.
The Minister knows, as we all know, that the system must be changed so that we have some form of local income tax or an entirely new system. I believe that he has not attempted to change the system because he fears that it might bring electoral unpopularity. Many people who do not pay their fair share to local expenditure might object in the ballot box if it were suggested that they should do so. If we as a nation are unlucky enough to be inflicted with another Labour Government—I do not think we shall be—then I forecast that the right hon. Gentleman will proscrastinate and prevaricate and that nothing will be done to reform the rating system in the next Parliament.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) asked what were the Conservative Party's proposals. They are to take £100 million off the rates, which is equivalent to one-tenth of the rate bill. That is a fairly realistic proposal. It does not go as far as we should like it to go, and there are many other reforms which could be considered, but it goes further than the Labour Party's proposal, which amounts to £30 million in 1967–68. I hope that when we are returned to power on 31st March we shall set in train a full inquiry into the whole rating system and shall reform it so that there is justice and parity for everybody.

Mr. Michael English: Would the hon. Member like to give us the equivalent of £100 million in terms of an increase in Income Tax?

Mr. Dudley Smith: No. I do not think that it will necessarily come by way of Income Tax.
Obviously, it must be considered in the context of raising revenue, including Income Tax, and any proposal to take expenditure away from local taxation to general taxation must be borne by the national Exchequer. But we managed over 13 years to reduce taxation while still spending more and more on general


services, but the Labour Party, since it has been in office, has put up direct taxation—and we can look forward to its putting up taxation again in April if it is returned to power at the General Election. Therefore, it is as broad as it is long. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if we on this side of the House are elected to power on 31st March for a period of five years we shall reduce general taxation.

Mr. Wellbeloved: rose—

Mr. Dudley Smith: No, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to answer one point at a time.
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would subscribe to the idea that it is a good thing to transfer a certain amount of money over to general taxation to relieve the burden on the ratepayers. The services which we in my party propose should be transferred to the Exchequer are teacher training, grants to students, advanced further education, Class 1 and Class 2 roads, registration of electors, births, marriages and deaths, civil defence and the administration of justice. Although all these items have a local context, no one would object if they were borne on the national Exchequer.
I hope that when we are returned to power we shall, besides making these reforms which are just for the nation, also set in train a full inquiry. There are hon. Members who have been pegging away for years with the idea that we should have the whole of the rating system reformed. One of the great difficulties has been that the experts—I am talking in a non-political context now—say that there is no effective substitute. I believe that there is an effective substitute somewhere and it has got to be found, and whichever party is in power, it is their duty to look into the matter and make sure that a substitute is brought forward.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman is advocating a radical change in the rating system. This is a fundamental departure from the point of view expressed by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in the debate on 20th March, 1964. I should like to quote what the right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief. The hon. Gentleman should give only a summary of what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Wellbeloved: If I may just give this brief quotation, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman said:
…I do not accept, nor do the Government accept, that the whole rating system…is outmoded and unfair."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1964; Vol. 691, c. 1939.]

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman is new here. He probably thinks that he has got me on the hook. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East knows that long before the hon. Gentleman considered coming to this House I was clashing with my right hon. Friend on this issue when our party was on the other side of the House. We are a democratic party—not like the party opposite. We have our differences. I have championed a change in the rating system and I shall continue to do so while I am in public life.
I am in a highly marginal seat and I realise that it is problematical whether I shall be re-elected. I think that I shall be, but I face realities and I recognise that there is a chance that I shall not be re-elected. But I fully intend, even if I do not win this time, in due course to come back to the House. While I do remain active in any form of public life, in this House or elsewhere, I shall fight unceasingly to get the tax system, which includes rating, reformed, because there is nothing more crippling to the initiative of the individual to make progress and to make the nation prosperous than too severe a tax system.
Rates are regressive, unfair and out of date, and the sooner we get a change the better. I shall continue fighting for this, and I think many other Members will do so, so that subsequently we shall prevail. When we do prevail, it will be under a Tory Government.

12.4 a.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith) is not too pessimstic about his return to the House after the General Election. I am not, and I am equally sure that his speech tonight will be a small step in the right direction on 31st March.
I intervene briefly to make a complaint about perhaps not the most important aspect of the rating system, but, nevertheless, a vital one, and I wish to make it as vehemently as I can. I refer to the decision by the Minister not to continue the quinquennial review in 1968.
Rates have always been a troublesome subject. That is bound to be so when we realise that people must put their hands in their pockets and produce substantial sums once or twice a year—or, under the latest legislation, sums ten times a year. This is a considerable burden to place on people. The trouble has been that while rates have not been increased proportionately to the national income, they have, certainly over the last few years, been increasing proportionately to the net incomes left to people. It is because of that that people have been hard hit.
The main result of the 1963 revaluation was to transfer some of the burden to industry. That was all very well for some areas—those with plenty of industry—but for places like Blackpool, which did not have much industry, it was a different story. In any case, the transfer to industry was, to some extent, illusory, because industry increased its prices to the consumer, and in the end the public paid the extra. However, in 1963 there was a general review and the rating valuations were brought to some parity, with a number of obvious exceptions.
It was not long before the mice got at it. Nobody complains about the introduction of a Measure with the principle of helping the less well off to pay their rates. My party has not objected to that recently-introduced Bill. However, the principle that 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of that alleviation should be paid for by other ratepayers introduces a further anomaly into the rating system.
When one looks back to the period from the beginning of the war to the final 1963 revaluation one sees the terrible results of delaying revaluation. Consider, for example, the position in a town like Blackpool. Over the years house prices changed rapidly. In many cases, by the late 'fifties and early 'sixties, rateable values had not changed for 20 to 25 years. It may be said that that was a bonus for the people who lived in those houses. It was. But it also came as a severe shock to them when 1939 prices

were translated into 1963 prices. The anomaly was far worse and it was not understood by everyone because there had been partial revaluation in the late 'fifties. One found that commercial property which had been brought up partially to the 1958–59 valuation was, for the last few years before the 1963 revaluation, paying a higher rate.
When it came to 1963 this had been forgotten by those who were faced with rate increases and they saw boarding houses and other commercial enterprises apparently not being charged from the rates point of view. They forgot that their rates had increased in the late 'fifties and they said, "Their rates are not going up. Why should our rates go up?" Wrong, no doubt, but understandable.
What are we doing about it now? Everybody knows perfectly well, particularly hon. Gentlemen opposite, the anger there has been in the past five or six years at the inequality of the rating system. It was made use of in party propaganda during those years. Shall we really find that by 1968 we have changed to a new system which will make it more equitable, or are we simply closing our eyes to the realities of the situation? Are we saying that we are stuck with the rates for years beyond the 1968 position? If that is the position, it seems to me to be nonsense—almost criminal nonsense—to say we shall not revalue in 1968. We shall start perpetuating once again all the anomalies, the difficulties and the injustices that occurred over those years.
It will be made no easier by the fact that inflation will continue over the years, perhaps at an increasing rate—who can tell? If it does, house prices will reflect these differences and the change in the value of money. At the end of the day we shall find ourselves back here in the 'seventies, fighting the same old battles, and facing an electorate and the ratepayers, who will say that we have betrayed them because we have failed once again, knowing what was to happen, to make sure rates moved in line with the changing values.
It is for that reason that I wanted to intervene in this debate. The Minister should think again—hard, long and earnestly—to see whether it is not possible in 1968, when the time comes, to say that we will have a revaluation, which is the


only thing that can keep justice between ratepayers.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. R. W. Brown: The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith) and I both serve London constituencies so we have some affinity, and as he and I were in public life together in a part of London where we were close together, we know the field in which we both worked. While what he says has some relevance—and I know that he has always resented the idea of the rating system—I must say that his Government had this matter brought to their attention time and time again. It is no good now trying to create a situation, for the benefit of his present electors, alleging that the Labour Government have failed to do something which, presumably, his own Government refused to do.
On the rating issue, it was very clear when the London reorganisation was to take place that the costings would be very high. I was one of those who marched, and petitioned, saw Ministers, and had row after row, asking the then Minister of Housing and Local Government to make up his mind what the financial cost would be. Time and time again he refused to do so. I cast figures for him. In fact, my latest figure on the new valuation was 3s. in the £ increase. He denied that. He said that it was not important, but that the important thing was to get the reorganisation done that he had in mind so as to abolish the London County Council. That was the real reason for the reorganisation. He wanted to get rid of the L.C.C., but would not say how much it would cost to achieve that end.
We petitioned the Queen, and asked her to ask the Minister to say, before taking that action, how much it would cost, so that the ratepayers of London would know. Again, the Minister refused. So the rates of London went up, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that they went up because his right hon. Friend deliberately acted as he did. We went further, and described what would happen in the following year. We said that the increase would be 3s. in the £ in the first year—because of the disintegration of the services and the proliferation of staffs that

would have to be employed—and that there would inevitably be increases in the salary bills in the second year. I forecast something like 1s. in the £ increase for the second year—which is this year—and that forecast looks like coming true.
We are talking of way back in 1962, when the hon. Member's right hon. Friend could have done something, but wilfully refused to do it. Therefore, I cannot accept from the hon. Member tonight that my hon. and right hon. Friends have been guilty in any way, but that they have not given sufficient money to offset what the hon. Member's Government wilfully did. Brentford and Chiswick must know that, whether or not the hon. Member contracted out of what his right hon. Friend was doing, he still sits on the benches opposite and must accept collective responsibility.
There may be argument about the £30 million or so which, as the hon. Member said, my right hon. Friend is allocating, but that is something which the hon. Member's right hon. Friend refused to do. On occasion after occasion when I saw the former Parliamentary Secretary he argued that finance was not important. I gave him many statistics to show that when reorganisation of London came the net result on the rates would be an alarming increase and he said to me, "I think that you are seeing bogies under the bed". I was not. It happens that the very figures I forecast in 1962 have proved about right.
I agree with the hon. Member that the rating system has been the argument year after year and decade after decade. I have had 17 years' experience as a member of an authority and been to local government conferences in different parts of the country when an alternative to rates has been discussed. We have talked about poll tax, local tax and land tax. I am worn out in trying to think of some other way of meeting the problem. My right hon. Friend was faced this year with a problem which was not of his making.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Member is rather trying to imply that it is purely a London problem, but we know that rates are going up all over the country and that in the London area it is mainly the Socialist authorities where there are the biggest increases.

Mr. Brown: That is not quite true, but, since the hon. Member and I both serve London constituencies and he raised this matter, as he said, on behalf of his "hard-pressed electors", I suggest that we should both talk about London. London electors should know where the responsibility lay for the greatest increase in rates in London. It lay squarely on hon. Members opposite, and they do not deny responsibility. This was the price that London had to pay for the elimination of the L.C.C.
I believe that my right hon. Friend is serious in his wish to do the best he can to find an alternative means of meeting the problem. I am quite satisfied about that. I am also satisfied that the Bill which we hope will become law tomorrow is an attempt to recognise the problem and give such assistance as may be given to help people who are in difficulties. I should have thought that was creditable. It may not be enough and may never be sufficient, but it is at least a recognition. My right hon. Friend will stand high in the esteem of people outside for at least having the courage, at a time when the Government were very hard pressed, due to the inadequacies of the party opposite when they left office a huge deficit for us to face in those circumstances, to be prepared to look at the problem and try to give some assistance.
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has been most courteous to me over a particular issue which has affected my constituents. We have rateable value problems. Because of the London reorganisation there has been a situation whereby some of my constituents were being charged exorbitant rates because their rateable value was out of all proportion to that in another part of the borough. I have had many meetings with my hon. Friend and he has discussed this fully with me. He has done a tremendous amount of work to help. This is some-think which I never had from those on the benches opposite when they were in power. They did not want to know or to understand, nor to apply their minds in any way to the problem. My hon. Friend has done me that courtesy in the past months when I have pressed him hard to try to solve the problem. I have to admit that we have not got the solution, but at least my hon. Friend is now aware of the problem and doing his best.
Therefore, I regret that the hon. Gentleman found it convenient to try to make a political issue of this matter because he cannot substantiate one iota of evidence to show that my right hon. Friend has failed to be seized of the importance of the situation. The hon. Gentleman knows that his right hon. Friend not only knew about it, not only deliberately made it worse, but wilfully refused to do anything in the interests of the people of London.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak this evening, because I was anxious to put the situation into perspective. If anybody is to lay blame, it certainly does not lie with the hon. Gentleman to suggest that my right hon. Friend is in any way culpable for what has happened.

12.21 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): It is, perhaps, not surprising that we have had two contributions from hon. Members opposite with highly marginal seats. I can understand that they want to make a case which they can reasonably take back to their constituents.
I can tell the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) that there is no mystery about the problem of valuation. There is a tremendous shortage of valuers throughout the country. This is one of the difficulties about the use of valuation in the rating system, and valuation is a highly complicated matter. As one who no doubt practises in these matters, the hon. Gentleman knows that. We have to have skilled valuers, who are extremely scarce, not only in the Government service, but in the whole profession. That is why it has been necessary to postpone revaluation.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith), if he will forgive my saying so, was not at his best tonight—no doubt because of the approach of the election. He tried to make a party political speech when he knows perfectly well that this is not a party political issue. His Government had a record in these matters of which, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman is thoroughly ashamed.
When he spoke about this subject in March, 1962, on a Motion about elderly


people with small fixed incomes, the hon. Gentleman said:
This is not a party matter. I believe in all honesty that it is a bleak outlook, whichever political party is in control, because of the expansion of services which are run by the local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman said tonight, rather foolishly—and my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) dealt with this very effectively—that the increases in local government expenditure were due to the improvement policies and inadequate management of Socialist councils. He quoted the particular swingeing increase which occurred when the London Government Act came into operation. The difficulties which arise in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury arise from the same problem. We inherited that Act and had to accept it and work it as best we could. It was not something which we could hope to improve.
In that same speech in March, 1962, the hon. Gentleman said:
I think that today we are in the position in which we cannot look forward to any reductions at all in future years in the rate burden because of this expansion of services. I forecast that probably in the next few years the rise may well be as much as 15 per cent. on the average person's rates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, March, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 1791–2.]
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman more on his prescience than on his constructive approach to the solution of the difficulties.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point, deliberately, I think. He has heard me speak on rates many times and he knows that my whole thesis has been that we must reform the rating system. I have said that whichever political party is in power must tackle this problem sooner or later. My point is that the Labour Party promise early relief, but that there has been no relief for the vast majority of people.

Mr. MacColl: I am dealing particularly with the point which the hon. Member made, which I thought was so unfair and unworthy, in suggesting that the Hounslow Borough Council had imprudent policies and inadequate management, when he knows perfectly well, from the time he approached them in a detached

and rational way, and he was a member of Middlesex County Council—which we did not abolish—that these increases are a result of the inevitable growth and improvement of the services which he welcomes, as does everyone else.
The hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted to have an inquiry. On that matter the Labour Party's record is pretty good. Shortly after the 1959 election I moved a Motion pointing out the unfair burden of local government expenditure on the rates and calling for an inquiry into the relationship of central and local finances. That was defeated by the then Government and I notice the hon. Member's name among those who took part in the vote to defeat it. From that time onwards, in every contribution that we made on the subject in that Parliament, we were urging the importance of having an inquiry.
Then the question came up on the Rating and Valuation Act, 1960, which has caused so much difficulty and hardship to people, so many technical difficulties, and so many problems arising out of litigation on the matter. We again moved an Amendment to the Bill to the effect that we should not have new valuations until we had an inquiry into the whole relationship of central and local government. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), one of my distinguished predecessors, with his characteristic oratory, said:
As usual, the Opposition are taking a cowardly and negative attitude. They are hiding behind an inquiry. The Opposition are posing as a lifesaver, having thrown away the lifebelts. That is why I ask hon. Members to support this logical, coherent and humane Measure, and to give it a Second Reading by a substantial majority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 524.]
We could not move in this matter until we had the first beginnings of an inquiry with the setting up in 1963 of the Allen Committee. It reported in February, 1965 and just over a year from the receipt of the report we are enacting an entirely new piece of legislation, the first practical attempt to deal with the very problem to which the hon. Member referred in speaking on that Motion in 1962 about old people with small fixed incomes. The hon. Member says, on the one hand, that this contribution which we are making is fiddling and useless, helping nobody. On the other, he says that the cost


a quarter of which will go on the rates, will cripple local authorities and will prevent them carrying on. The two points are utterly incompatible.
What exactly is the proposal of the party opposite for the transfer of services? The figure of £100 million has been tossed out in an extraordinarily loose way. No one knows how the scheme is to work. Is it all to happen in one year? If so, in what year? Or is it to be phased over a number of years? Our own proposals for grants which we set out in the White Paper are esimated to cost in the third year virtually the same amount, £99 million. There is the further great value in our proposals that they are weighted in favour of the domestic ratepayer.
Even taking the £100 million which the Conservatives say they would transfer to central Government funds, tax on that will come back to the Exchequer from the commercial and industrial ratepayers who will get the benefit of the transfer. Thus, the net cost to the Exchequer of our scheme is more than the cost of the Conservative proposals.
There are three parts to this operation. First, there is the urgent but too long delayed immediate relief through rebates and instalments. Secondly, there are our grant proposals for an increasing proportion of expenditure to go over to the central Government funds. Thirdly, there is the need for a long-term solution. Here, I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said. We are unlikely to achieve a final solution within the existing rating system. As my right hon. Friend has said, we are unlikely to reach a solution without a substantial reorganisation of local government because, if there is to be a really effective alternative source of revenue, one must reduce the number of authorities which have to raise that revenue.
We accept that there is no immediate solution to the problem. But we have not done nothing about it, as the last Government did nothing about it in spite of our pleading. The hon. Gentleman himself confessed that he quarrelled with the previous Minister about his failure to tackle the problem. But we have not waited. We have gone straight ahead immediately with quick and effective proposals which are and will be of great advantage to the ratepayer.

Orders of the Day — LEASEHOLD REFORM

12.32 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Norwood: I wish to raise a subject which, to some extent, has already been discussed during this Session, namely, leasehold reform. I do so not because the debate a few days ago was incomplete, but because it is a matter of considerable interest to many residents in my constituency.
I say at the outset that I welcome the Government's proposals in their White Paper, and I am only sorry that the curtailment of this Session has made it impossible for them to find their way into legislation at this stage. Traditionally, of course, the arguments about leasehold reform are concerned particularly with the North-East—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not in this debate argue the need for new legislation. This debate is to call attention to administrative problems of government. If the problems which the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise can be solved only by new legislation, he is out of order.

Mr. Norwood: I do not think that these problems require new legislation. Perhaps I was in error in referring to the White Paper and implying that it was a matter for legislation. This is not necessarily so. At least, I think not. No doubt, you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to draw attention to problems which already exist in my constituency and which, I think, do not necessarily require legislation, although in some cases—again, Mr. Speaker, you may correct me—they may. We have had one instance, which was the cause of some conflict at the last General Election, where in Grove Road, in my constituency, at the time of the falling in of the leases—they all fell in together—42 houses, oldish, but of substantial construction, were demolished by a developer, with the administrative consequence that the families from them were required to be rehoused by the local authority. The capital cost to the local authority, in respect of the 42 families, could not have been less than £100,000. Under the present arrangements, it is not possible


for the local authority to receive special assistance in this regard.
In other words, the ratepayers of the City of Norwich were required to undertake a debt burden, for which they will have to pay over the next 60 years, of £100,000 in order to rehouse the people displaced from those properties. As a responsible authority, the corporation rehoused them and incurred this burden. It also happens that the houses built in the place of those knocked down have not proved easy to sell, but that is merely a matter of the developer's miscalculation. What has happened under the present arrangements is that the local authority and, therefore, the ratepayers of the City of Norwich have been required to bear the burden of a developer's efforts to make a profit by demolishing perfectly adequate houses.
Over the last year or so I have had a substantial number of letters from my constituency, and particularly from certain areas, especially in the Town Close Ward, which may not be easily identifiable to the House but will be well understood in the city, from people who are in occupation of adequate, substantial and in some cases relatively modern housing, who have never been given more than 75-year leases and in some cases less, and who are in a state of very considerable uncertainty and doubt about the future of their houses. I do not know how far I can refer to the White Paper—

Mr. Speaker: I have been very kind to the hon. Member. I have listened very patiently to him. So far, it seems, however, that what he is asking for is some legislation to deal with the grievance that he is raising.

Mr. Norwood: I see, Mr. Speaker. I must be very careful. I do not wish to go beyond the bounds of what is permissible in this debate.

Mr. Speaker: I am not asking the hon. Gentleman not to go beyond the bounds of order. I am asking him to come within them. He has not been within them yet. He must now come into order.

Mr. Norwood: I see, Mr. Speaker. At least, I hope I see.
The letters which have been written to me are not necessarily asking for new

legislation, and, again, I suppose that the matter could be dealt with administratively. The problem is that numbers of these people are in possession of houses of which they are, in effect, the owners, although in the course of a number of years they will lose them. It is my assertion, although I cannot ask for new legislation, that any possible action that may be taken which would enable them to enjoy in the full sense the occupation of the property which any average or normal person understands as his own is fully to be desired.
I am excluded by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, from saying something that I wish to say. I do not know whether this is permissible. I trust that it is. I have received a further letter from one of the major charities in the city. This charity argues that if the present arrangements are altered in any way—in other words, if it becomes permissible for an individual to obtain the freehold of his property—it would mean damage or, to quote the actual words—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now discussing some sort of problem posed by the new law that is to be, which we cannot talk about in this debate.

Mr. Norwood: This letter was prior to the introduction of either the White Paper or any suggestion about the reform of the leasehold system. It was written in March. It states that were there to be any change in the present arrangements—looking through it quickly, it does not refer to legislation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether the letter was written in March, before or after the publication of the White Paper, is not the fact which inhibits the hon. Member. We are on the Consolidated Fund Bill. The hon. Member is entitled to raise grievances concerning the administration of a Department of State. He cannot advocate legislation, or propose the modification of legislation which is proposed. There will be other opportunities for that.

Mr. Norwood: I trust that there will, Mr. Speaker, God willing. That appears to close the quotation, although the words used were that were there to be any changes, they could mean the ruin of


the area. That would include administrative as well as legislative changes—at least, that is the implication of the paragraph as I now look at it.
The point I wish to make—and I appear to be somewhat limited by the rules of the House as to the points I can make—is to the effect that the present arrangements impose substantial injustice upon large numbers of people, of whom there are a considerable number in my constituency, who are the occupiers of houses but are not in law the owners. They desire to see changes. I fancy that it matters not greatly to them whether the changes are made in an administrative way or legislatively. Nevertheless—and I have no wish to refer to any impending legislation, Mr. Speaker, since you have ruled that out of order—they would like to see the subject discussed. I can only say that if there are proposals, I cannot comment on them although I know them to exist.
There is a substantial feeling of injustice. I could, for instance, mention cases under the existing law in which, in my view, the ground landlords have wilfully and unreasonably withheld consent for a sale of the freehold against the leaseholder and have done so because they anticipated that future legislation would not be possible. I have had a number of people come to me who have dearly wanted to buy the freeholds of the houses which they had bought—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is very ingenious, and is getting almost into order occasionally, but he must leave the case he is putting now and come to what is an administrative responsibility of a Department of the Government. At present, there does not appear, from what he has said, to be one.

Mr. Norwood: Yes. I should have thought that under existing legislation there must be responsibility in some Department. Whether it lies among the Law Officers, or with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, I would not feel myself competent to say. Even under the existing law there are people who could reasonably expect that their landlords would be prepared to deal with them by offering the freeholds—at some price.
Of course, it is a matter for future legislation, which may or may not be

impending, depending upon the General Election, what sort of price it ought to be, but, nevertheless, under present arrangements there must be some sort of price. In one case at least of which I know the trustees of an estate have wholly and completely refused to negotiate with a man, a constituent of mine, who has indicated he was prepared to negotiate at a reasonable level.
I am greatly confined by the rules of debate and I can make only two more points. They are these. First, this is a matter about which I feel strongly. Secondly, even if I did not, I should feel obliged to raise it because it is a matter brought to me by a number of my constituents, and it is a matter which will, no doubt, be sorted out at the election. I have no desire to propose additional legislation. I know not what form it will take. If it comes, it comes, and I hope it will come. I can only say that under the present arrangements I know of a substantial number of cases in Norwich in which, I am well satisfied, injustice has been done to people merely because they were leaseholders.

12.48 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I am sure that the House realises that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) has been in some difficulties in deploying grievances which he would have liked to have been able to deploy. He has been in difficulties because of the rules of order which, I think, we all understand. There were two definite grievances which seemed to me, from what he said, to arise from existing legislation, and I may perhaps be permitted to comment on them, because they are the responsibility of the Government in general.
My hon. Friend instanced a number of houses in one street in his constituency, houses which had been demolished at the end of their lease, with the result that a number of people—I believe I am correct in saying 42 families—had to be rehoused by the local authority. The point of grievance is not only that those individual families lost their homes, but that the cost of providing new homes fell upon the ratepayers, and the rehousing may, of course, have had some effect on those on the local authority's housing waiting list.


What my hon. Friend was really doing, then, was to draw attention to an obvious defect under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954.
That Act gave certain protection to occupying and residential lessees when their leases were up. In certain circumstances, those individuals could claim to become statutory tenants. This did not mean to say that the homes which had been theirs, which they had paid for, and, in some cases, had built—or which their ancestors or, at any rate, their predecessors in title had paid for—would become eventually theirs.
What happened under the 1954 Act, in circumstances where someone could remain on as a statutory tenant, was that he could stay in residence at a rack rent until the tenancy terminated either on the death of the tenant or because he moved away. The house, which had either been built by the predecessor in title of the tenant or by his ancestor, then went to the landowner who had never paid a penny for it. So that all that the 1954 Act did was to delay for a time the return of a building to someone who had never paid a penny towards its construction.
Many of us thought at the time that that was a very unfair way of dealing with the situation. But a much worse defect of the 1954 Act was that if the landlord or freeholder could prove to the satisfaction of the court that he intended to redevelop the property, the occupying lessee had no right to stay on in his home. He found himself on the street, in many cases saddled with a heavy bill of dilapidations.
Obviously, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to what has happened to his constituents, and it is something which has happened to many others. I can tell him of a case in Swiss Cottage, in North London, of a large number of rather attractive houses of quite elegant design which had 40 or 50 years' life left in them and which were destroyed at the end of a lease. Much more expensive properties were erected in place of them, and the original tenants had to fend for themselves, having lived there for 50 or 60 years in some cases. Those more expensive houses having been erected, one then had a double loss, in that people who had previously had homes lost them, and the houses were replaced by more

expensive properties which did nothing to meet the housing need.
I would be out of order if I tried to explain how the Government hope to remedy the grievance, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it will not be overlooked.
The other difficulty is in the case of well managed leasehold estates. It is a great mistake to assume that all leasehold estates are well managed. A great many have not been well maintained and, right from the early days of the Report of the 1884 Royal Commission down to examples which were given in the Report of the Jenkins Committee in 1950, there are many examples in the other direction. It is right that the House should bear in mind that the instances go both ways. From some of the comments in the professional journals recently, one would imagine that all leasehold estates are well managed but it must be realised that that is not the case.
What is exercising my hon. Friend and some of his constituents is that where there happens to be a well-managed estate and there are amenity covenants appreciated by everyone so that the houses themselves are kept in a pleasant condition—there may be flowers, trees and other amenities—these should be maintained if in any way the system were to be changed in the future. Again, I cannot comment on that, but I assure my hon. Friend that the position of well-managed estates, with considerable advantages to those who live in the properties, is something that the Government will bear very much in mind.
I cannot reply further to my hon. Friend. I think that he understands the position and knows that both the points that he has made will be borne in mind by the Government.

Orders of the Day — R.A.O.C DEPOT, NORTON FITZWARREN (CLOSURE)

12.54 a.m.

Mr Edward du Cann: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of No. 3 Supply Reserve Depot, operated by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps in the village of Norton Fitzwarren, near Taunton, in my constituency.
There are a number of rumours about the present situation. There is certainly


a degree of uncertainty about the future of this establishment and those who are working there, and I shall be most grateful to the Under-Secretary for any clarification he can give me, and more particularly my constituents, in relation to the particular points which I propose to raise. May I say that I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in being here at this very late hour this evening to answer this debate.
This is a story which really began when I received a letter dated 20th October, 1965 from the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army. That letter informed me, as Member of Parliament for the constituency, that it had been decided that this depot should be closed and its functions transferred elsewhere. There have been a number of rumours both inside the depot and outside it against this possibility, because rationalisation of the supply functions of the three Services has been a matter about which this House in general has been agreed for some time, and it was generally projected that the future of this depot would be called in question. If I may say so, in parenthesis, as it were, I was grateful for the way in which I was kept informed by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, who is now the Minister, a habit which the hon. Gentleman has courteously followed in his turn.
The story began at the end of last year, and arising out of that there are a number of points which I hope the Minister will be good enough to answer. Included in the letter to which I have referred was a phrase which really explains the reason why for some time I have been anxious to raise this matter, and I am glad to have the opportunity tonight to do so.
Having told me about the decision to close the depot, the Minister went on to write:
There is bound to be redundancy.
The civilian strength of this depot is 213 persons, men and women, and I shall be more particular about the figures in a moment. It may seem that in total numbers this is small in the context of the number of people whom the Army employ for this sort of work, and small by comparison with the number of people who may or may not be employed in our great towns and cities, but in the village of

Norton Fitzwarren the proposal to close this depot and transfer its functions in the main to Botley, near Southampton, is a very serious matter, for inevitably the final closure involves a substantial proportion of the people living in that village.
May I say something in general about the depot. First, it is designed and built for the task of storing, receiving and issuing thousands of tons of food supplies. It is extremely well equipped. Second, it has a laboratory which is fine in the research and testing work that it does. This laboratory is of recent construction—within the last year or so, in the main—and it is clear that a great deal of money has been spent on it.
Third, it is an extremely efficient depot. I have seen it in operation, and I do not think that anyone could gainsay that. What is more, those who are working in it are widely experienced in their work, and extremely good at it. Fourth—and I do not doubt that I shall carry the Minister with me here—in tonnage, in work, and in loyalty this depot, as an example of its kind, simply cannot be bettered.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Merlyn Rees): indicated assent.

Mr. du Cann: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the indication of assent which he is good enough to give me on that point. Indeed, I hope that he will allow me to say that, whatever the future of this depot may be, there is no doubt that the Army and the country in general owe a great deal to those who have worked there with honour and credit to themselves and their country, now and in the past.
That being so, there must be good reason to disband the team and to recruit new labour; in other words, to upset what is obviously an effective operation and transfer the whole thing to Botley.
I want to speak briefly about the human problems involved. The total number of disabled registered and non-registered persons working there is 24, which is more than 10 per cent.—a high proportion. Also included in the total establishment are 132 men over the age of 50 who, again, must obviously, by definition, have given excellent and long service to the Army Department. Of


the established staff 25 are non-industrialist—23 men and two women—and 23 are industrial—21 men and two women. Of the temporary staff, eight are non-industrial—three men and five women—and 108 industrial—70 men and 38 women. In general, it can be said that there are bound to be very great human problems in the move, not only in respect of the disabled people but also in respect of those who are over the age of 50, who, plainly, will find it very difficult to find employment.
The Minister was good enough to inform me by letter in the last few days that of those 213 persons employed 122 can be offered other jobs. I am grateful for that. But that leaves the question: what of the remainder—nearly 50 per cent.? I am bound to bring to the attention of the hon. Gentleman the problem of the people working there, for women especially—whether established or not—will no doubt find it extraordinarily difficult to move their homes. In sum, many human problems are involved under this head.
There is virtually no other suitable employment in the area which is immediately available to those who either decide not to move to Botley or cannot be offered employment there. This is the position both in Norton Fitzwarren and Taunton. My first question, therefore, is: to what extent has this change-over been considered in the context of regional development? Obviously, the employment prospects in the South-West are very different from those in the South, and the employment prospects in and around Southampton are very different from those in and around Taunton.
When I began my speech I made the point that rationalisation of Service supplies is a matter about which the whole House is properly agreed. This is rightly a continuing process. I want to make it plain, therefore, that I am not against rationalisation per se, nor—as I can say with full authority—are the staff of this establishment at Norton Fitzwarren; indeed, in the discussions which we have properly had together about this matter the thing that has impressed me more than anything else has been the extreme reasonableness and common sense of those involved.
A moment or two ago, when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, he made the point, which we all have in mind, that the opportunity to speak on this Bill allows us to raise grievances before Supply. I do not wish the hon. Member to think that it is my purpose, either for myself—because I have made a judgment—or for my constituents, to raise a grievance. That is not the feeling of my constituents. But it is right that I should say clearly that I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy me and—more important—my constituents, who are reasonable people, that what is proposed here is reasonable, sensible and in the national interest. To use the same word for the third time, it is "reasonable" to ask that evidence should be given that, if the transfer is carried out, it will produce economies, and that the new arrangement will be at least as efficient as the old.
I am advised that the estimated saving here is likely to be about £300,000 a year and I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's confirmation that this is what is expected. Perhaps we can go into that. I am also advised, however, that the staff costs in Botley are bound to be much more than in Taunton. As many as 120 or more staff might have to be recruited, and the remarkable and unsatisfactory thing is that staff costs—pay, in a word—in Botley appear to be a good deal higher than in the environs of Taunton.
I am told, though I have not been able to check these figures, that a labourer in Botley is likely to be paid about £20 a week—that is to say, his ordinary rate and a bonus—whereas, in Taunton, the basic rate is about £10 18s. a week. There is a bonus scheme in Botley which, in general, results in people being paid between £3 and £4 a week each more than they are in Taunton.
This seems curious, on the face of it, but whatever the logic of the situation—I am not competent to judge, but would appreciate the Under-Secretary's comments tonight—if that is so, it must mean that there will, in general, be a greater expense in paying the staff, that is to say, in the ordinary running costs of the new operation, if the decision has been made to make the transfer. Perhaps there is a simple explanation of this. It is clear that the pressure on staff in the Southampton area must inevitably be very much


heavier than in Taunton for the reasons which I have given.
I am also advised that the transport costs at Botley to bring the staff in will be a matter which will fall on the establishment. At Norton Fitzwarren, as the Under-Secretary will know, the staff have to pay their own costs. In sum, under this head, it appears from the advice which I have that staff costs will be greater.
I now turn to the logistics of the matter. I am advised that the scattering of the supply organisation will involve higher transport costs. I am told, for instance, that eight C.S.D.s are served from Norton Fitzwarren and that the position will be entirely changed—without going into the details of the matter—by the transfer. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will comment on this point.
I am advised that the end result, if the transfer is made, will be that savings under this head are likely to be more illusory than real. A short time ago I read the Eighth Report of the Estimates Committee, for the Session 1964–65, which was printed as recently as 3rd November. I was struck by an observation in paragraph 95:
In the area covered by Your Committee's inquiry several schemes of rationalisation have been drawn up and some are in the process of being put into effect. The Ministry of Defence were however unable to report any specific economies achieved so far.
There may well be good reasons for that: I do not suggest that there are not. I merely quote this paragraph because I think it right to draw it to the Under-Secretary's attention. It reinforces me to a degree in the argument which I have so far adduced, that, on the surface at any rate, it appears that the economies may not be as great as had originally been foreseen, certainly on the staff and logistics side.
I now turn to the physical side, which is a very much larger matter. I am advised that the Navy's storage facilities at Botley are not adequate. I have not seen them, but I did come into fleeting contact with them during the war—but that is a very different matter and it was a long time ago. I am told that only part of the Taunton operation can be accommodated. I am told, for example, that 250,000 sq. ft. is available whereas the packing department alone in Taunton

requires almost that amount of space—230,000 sq. ft. I am told, therefore, that as of this moment the whole operation in Taunton, the physical work which they do, and the storage cannot be emptied because there is insufficient room at Botley.
I am told, further, that as a result there will be a need to build new sheds at Botley. Without going into the detail, perhaps the hon. Member will deal with that point in general and tell me whether that is so, whether new sheds will have to be built, and, if so, what is the likely cost. That would enable everybody better to appreciate the realities of the financial situation.
Apart from the capital cost, I am told that the Navy in Botley is handling very different types of food operation from that in train at Taunton at present. To give an example, one-fifth of the naval supplies at present are tinned goods whereas four-fifths of the Norton Fitzwarren goods are tinned.
I turn to the particular work at Norton Fitzwarren where they are so successful—the business of special packs under the command of an excellent man, Mr. Dunster, and his colleagues. The question arises how the specially packed product will be handled in the future. I am advised that at the moment virtually nothing goes from Botley for victualling of ships. How true this is I do not know. I could mention a number of other points, but I am not a technical expert. Nevertheless, I am bound to question whether this changeover will be more effective or more complete.
May I draw the attention of the House, and, in particular, of the Minister, to certain other paragraphs in the eighth Report of the Estimates Committee, beginning at paragraph 106. Without deploying in any detail what is said there, I quote the following:
It was…surprising to the Sub-Committee to learn that the Navy Department had been invited to draw up plans for supplying food to all three Services.
In that paragraph a further argument is adduced into which I will not go in detail. I content myself with that statement because I do not doubt that the facts are familiar to the hon. Member.
Paragraph 107 is perhaps even more interesting:
Even if it is accepted that one of the Services should be the chosen agent for the supply of food, the question still remains as to why the Navy Department were invited to draw up a plan in preference to the Army who have by far the largest organisation for supplying food of the three Services and already provide the R.A.F. with a substantial proportion of their messing requirements.
Incidentally, the Minister knows that this is one of the principal functions of the Norton Fitzwarren depot. The paragraph adds:
A memorandum on this subject submitted by the Ministry of Defence points out that if this major user principle were to be applied in all arrangements for rationalisation, the Army would almost invariably be selected.
The argument is further deployed, and I will not go into it in detail, but it is somewhat impressive that the paragraph ends:
Again, Your Committee do not consider that the need to find a task for the naval victualling organisation
—a remarkable expression—
to undertake is an adequate reason for giving them this very large responsibility.
This point is developed further in paragraph 108 when it is suggested that
The system of allocating functions to each Service in turn
is known as "Buggins' Turn. "
There are some remarks about radio operators, and so on, with which I will not weary the House, but this part sentence ends—after continuing the argument—
This would seem likely to limit seriously the economies to be gained from the project.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that these questions are fairly weighty and they are the result of the conclusions of a Committee of the whole House, formed after hearing evidence of a substantial kind from expert witnesses from the Minister's own Department.
I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on those, points. Can he assure us that the change will be economical and efficient in the light of the information that I have endeavoured to give shortly on the subject of costing in regard to running costs, capital costs, the particular and peculiar work done by this depot and in relation to the comments of

the Estimates Committee? For that clarification I would be most grateful.
Perhaps I could also raise another point which seems to me to run on almost from what I have already said. Is it not possible for some economies to be effected at Norton Fitzwarren itself? I could make practical suggestions and would be happy to do so on another occasion, but I think it fair to ask the Minister what evaluation has been made under this head, and to go further and ask: why is it not possible, rather than shift the Norton Fitzwarren depôt to Botley, to let the Royal Navy take over Norton Fitzwarren as it stands—this purpose-made, efficient depôt?
The closing of this side of Botley's operation, which is small, would affect only seven or eight people. We have already discussed the ease with which those people might find other employment. There would not be the same human problem if that were done. It would presumably be possible for Botley to be sold and the whole thing to be moved to Norton Fitzwarren. Has this been considered? I am advised that the Norton Fitzwarren depôt could easily assume responsibility for the whole naval food and victualling work which is done at Botley and for the stocks.
One of the remarkable features of the whole Norton Fitzwarren operation is that the depot is much larger than its existing user—a point to which I shall refer again later. There is plenty of storage space. There is the supervisory staff necessary to do the additional work. Both exist and both can be seen to exist. As to the additional work load, again I am advised that this could easily be met by rephasing and eliminating the peaks in the present outflow of dispatches. This is a technical matter, but the Minister well knows that this occurs. It could be dealt with, I believe, and if it were done no increase in personnel would be required at Norton Fitzwarren. Again, I would be grateful for the Minister's view. I am suggesting, therefore, that here is possibly a real opportunity for economies.
I began by saying that I had been most impressed with what I had been told by those members of the staff whom I have seen. I was impressed by them and their arguments based, of course, on their practical and devoted experience. One


example impressed me more than anything else, and it was this. These are not people who are very highly paid—far from it. Indeed, one of our main problems is that the workpeople in the West Country are paid, in general, much below the national average. But they would be willing for £250, a great sum of money, to be taken from their canteen fund and used to have the matter investigated by independent Consultants. If that is not an example of their backing their own judgment with all the resources they possess, and if that is not impressive, I do not know what is. I hope that it will convince the Minister, if he needs convincing, of the great seriousness with which these people take the matter.
I have said that the depot is not fully used at present. What is the possibility of obtaining other users? I raised this point with the Minister when he gave me a courteous reception some time ago. He informed me that there was a possibility of obtaining a short-term user. He has since written to me saying that he and his Department are satisfied that a short-term user does not exist. So far, so bad, from the point of view of my constituents, but has he any proposals to offer the depot to other Service users, assuming that the decision to close it has been made and that he is satisfied that that is the right course to take? What investigations is he making and when will he be in a position, if these proposals are being looked into, to say exactly what the situation is?
I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to conduct these inquiries as a matter of urgency, because I emphasise that anxiety is felt locally about this matter. Whatever decision is finally made about, say, a Service user or others, other questions arise. For example, if the depot is to be moved—and I hope that the Minister will satisfy us that this is the right course—what will happen to the site in future? I hope that it will be developed for industrial purposes. I have been determined to see that we get an increasing degree of industry in and around Taunton, Wellington, and so on. I have been engaged in this endeavour for a considerable time. This closure provides an opportunity. It is a magnificent site, ideally situated for manufacturing purposes.
Is the D.E.A. or the Board of Trade—with which I am, for the time being, not in as close touch as I was some time ago—making any plans or showing interest in the depot? I assume that some thinking has been given to the matter because it is logical to suppose that these things are thought out before a closure takes place. It is my duty as the hon. Member for the area to look into these matters. I have received a number of inquiries from firms which are only too anxious to take over either the whole or part of the site for industrial purposes. I have with me a letter from one firm which has impressed me very much indeed.
One part of the letter from this local firm states:
As is common in interdepartmental affairs of this sort, no one seems clear as to what is going to happen to the section of the Camp which is to be closed or to the workers I have mentioned above.
The second point is rather unfair because the Army has gone to a great deal of trouble to see that the people who work there are kept fully informed. I pay tribute to the commanding officer of the depot, who is an officer of the highest calibre. I have obviously not discussed the closure with him, but when I have seen him during my visits to the camp he has impressed me as being an officer of remarkable qualities.
The letter goes on:
We have intimated both to the Ministry of Works and to the Ministry of Defence that we would be interested in acquiring, either by negotiated purchase or on a rental basis, building(s) at the S.R.D., and that furthermore, we should be prepared favourably to consider taking up quite a number of the redundant workers if they would be prepared to submit themselves to trade retraining by the Ministry of Labour at the nearest convenient centre.
I know that the Minister will appreciate the importance of this in the context of what I have said about the older people.
The letter adds:
In this number we should be prepared to incorporate a suitable proportion of disabled workers, who could perform the less arduous machine work.
We should be most grateful if you could possibly use your influence"—
to obtain an answer from the Ministry.
My final point is simply that here is one example of a firm which could move in to part of that site and, whether or


not the depot is closed for its present purposes, could provide employment in the area—something which is very much needed. Can we not make arrangements to get this firm, or any other firms, in now? Cannot that be undertaken? Can we not accelerate the process as a matter of urgency? I appreciate that a number of complicated factors are involved, and that these we must talk about, but in any case, whatever happens to the depot, cannot we show that we are determined to make the maximum use of it in the future, either in part, as I suggest, or in whole?
I know that I have not spoken this evening for as long as have some other hon. Members, but I hope that the Minister will not think that the brevity of my speech in any way means that I do not take the matter extremely seriously. My brevity is, indeed, in inverse proportion to the strength of feeling of both my constituents and myself. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give satisfactory answers to the questions that I have felt obliged to raise.

1.27 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for informing me beforehand of some of the points he wished to raise, and I welcome the opportunity to place on record the facts which he has requested. I shall take the opportunity to refer to the Eighth Report of the Estimates Committee, which impinges on the problem. If I do not cover all the points the right hon. Gentleman raised I will, of course, arrange to write to him about them. I will confess to one at once—the particular problem of victualling of ships is something on which I do not have information.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous remarks about my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Army, who is here tonight as well as myself. That is almost two for the price of one—or is it the other way round? I should also like to thank him for his very courteous remarks about the Commanding Officer of No. 3 S.R.D.
The decision to close 3 Supply Reserve Depot, Taunton, must be seen against the background of the plan prepared by the Navy Department for the single management of food. This plan is part of the general scheme of rationalising logistic functions between the Services, under which each of the Service Departments was given responsibility for preparing rationalisation plans on various subjects. The plan prepared by the Navy Department for food showed that combining the food stocks of the three Services would lead to savings, and that the best way to achieve these was by closing the depot at Taunton. This plan was approved by the Ministry of Defence in September, 1965.
This showed that the existing naval victualling depots could provide all the necessary bulk storage for food. These depots, which are situated in or near to the main naval ports, could not themselves be closed because storage is required near the naval ports for operational reasons. They must be in positions where they can continue to serve the Fleet.
Eighty per cent. of the food stocks held at Taunton will in future be held at the naval victualling depot at Botley in the Southampton area. This is a modern depot built since the 1939–1945 war with excellent facilities, including first-class road and rail access and a highly-developed system of mechanical handling. The remainder of the stock will be held at Kirkliston, in Scotland, with a small quantity at Wrangaton, near Plymouth—both excellent depots. The packing of composite rations will be transferred from Taunton to Botley, where good heated accommodation is available. The Navy Department's laboratory facilities at Gosport, supported as at Taunton by the resources of the Government Chemist, will provide an equally good service of inspection and analysis.
The right hon. Member referred to paragraph 108 of the Estimates Committee Report in which the Committee has agreed with the Association of Government Supervisors' and Radio Officers' judgment that the use of the Navy Department for bulk wholesale food distribution was decided on the principle of "Buggins' turn". I can assure the House that this is not the way in which the Ministry of Defence approaches a


problem of this kind. As I hope I have shown, there are sound economic and operational considerations behind this decision.
The right hon. Member also suggested that Botley could not cope with the increased work load. We have examined this with great care and I emphasise that we have no doubt that there is an adequate labour supply and a sufficient up-to-date capacity at Botley. Botley will be able to cope with all the three Services food stocks because the naval clothing and accommodation stores have been rehoused elsewhere. That also answers one of the points raised in paragraph 520 of the eighth Report of the Estimates Committee. The production line for the packing of the 24-hour ration pack is already in successful operation.
The right hon. Member referred to paragraph 115 of the Report of Sub-Committee D of the Estimates Committee and suggested that the giving of responsibility of bulk food supply to the Navy Department would create difficulties in those areas, particularly overseas, where the other Services would operate food depots and organise local distribution. I can assure him that no difficulty will arise in practice. The change we are making is in our bulk storage arrangements, or if you like, our wholesale side. The existing arrangements for local purchase and local inter-Service co-operation will continue. The main difference will be that one department in London instead of two or three will be responsible for financial control and for the supply of those items not bought locally. For instance, the Army depots at Antwerp and Hong Kong will continue to supply food to the three Services in their areas. The origins of the bulk supplies to them will change, but the change will make no difference to their organisation and distribution arrangements.
The constituents of the right hon. Member expressed some concern to him that the standard enjoyed under the existing system might suffer under the new arrangements. The Navy Department attaches great importance to maintaining a high standard of service to all its customers and the Director of Victualling will have Army and Royal Air Force staff seconded to his headquarters. I do not think that the right hon. Member or his

constituents need worry on that score. The right hon. Member will have noted that Sub-Committee D made no recommendation to alter the food rationalisation plan. This plan is so devised that the new management organisation could be readily absorbed into a unified stores service if that were considered advisable at a later stage.
The right hon. Member did not refer tonight, but in our talks we have referred, to the Estimates Committee Report and I wish to mention paragraph 1385 of the minutes of evidence where, he will recall, it was suggested that the taking over by the Navy Department might lead to a greater spread of supervisory grades, in other words, to more people of this kind being employed. The Navy and Army Departments employ similar grades of supervisory staff and the numbers and gradings are kept to the minimum consistent with efficiency. In the case of food rationalisation, the closure of the Taunton depôt will produce a net saving of six supervisory personnel, four Army officers and two civilians.
On savings in general, I am advised that the figures I give are conservative—in the context of tonight, perhaps I should say "modest". The annual net recurring savings arising from the closure of Taunton are about £240,000, after allowing—and I emphasise that it is after allowing—for the necessary increases in cost at the Navy victualling depots. These are the necessary increases in costs of having more staff. I should add that, in addition, there is the disposal value of the depôt at Taunton. It is a valuable site. The £240,000 net saving is made up of £105,000 staff costs and £135,000 running costs. This saving is by far the largest element in the total financial saving resulting from food rationalisation of approximately £300,000 per annum, and I am also advised that the other £60,000 is in smaller items of a general nature including headquarters staff.
Furthermore, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we shall make some economies in staff by closing the depôt at Taunton and that, already, we have been able to make some reductions in the Minister of Defence headquarters staff by this rationalisation; and that of itself is very desirable.
On the consequences of the closure, the Taunton depôt is already in process


of running down and will close in October of this year. The staff there consists of four Army officers and just over 200 civilians. Some redundancy may occur earlier than October. The precise staff rundown programme is not yet firm, but it is unlikely that any reductions other than by normal wastage will be necessary before July.
Established employees will be offered other Government employment, although this may not be in the Taunton area. There is, of course, a well and long-established procedure for established staff. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that throughout the course of the negotiations for the closure there have been cordial relations between the management and the trade union representatives on the local Whitley Council. It was clear from many of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that he realised that.
Unestablished staff do not have the same entitlement as established staff to guaranteed employment. If we cannot absorb them into local Army establishments, the Department does all it can to find alternative work for them in other Departments or in industry. Our local officers maintain close liaison with the Ministry of Labour and major employers in the area and will help our employees by ensuring that they are kept informed of local opportunities by making it easy for them to follow up such opportunities and advising them, through our welfare or labour officers, on matters which may seem to present them with difficulty.
There will be vacancies elsewhere, including the Navy victualling depôt at Botley, for those willing to move, and we are doing all we can, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, to help our employees to find other work. In fact, officials from the Botley depôt and the local Ministry of Labour offices were at the Taunton depôt yesterday to help employees about alternative employment. We are aware of the age problem and of the disabled workers and the particular problems of female workers.
The Army Department has established conclusively—and I and my hon. Friend are satisfied on this point—that there is now no use for the depot in another

defence rôle. We are now following normal disposal action. First, it is being offered to other Government Departments and, in view of the number of interests to be consulted, this will take us, so I am advised, to the end of April. Then we will have to ask the local authority for its views both on planning and whether it is interested in the site and the buildings. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we will make informal contact before then so that the local authority is aware of all that is required before that time.
Thirdly, if the procedure which I have mentioned achieves nothing, we shall dispose of the property on the open market. As the right hon. Gentleman knows and has mentioned tonight, the firm of Messrs. Easton and Johnson has already applied with regard to the future of the depot. I should inform him that there are other and major firms which are also interested. It all looks extremely promising in this respect. We also follow the procedure, which is relatively old, of consulting the Board of Trade which has responsibility here, and because of the responsibility of the D.E.A. in regional planning it also has been informed at an early stage. All these Departments have been aware of what is going on well in advance of the selling.
I am confident that the Defence Department has made the right decision in carrying out this part of its rationalisation programme, which is one of the reasons why the Ministry of Defence was set up in the first instance, as the right hon. Gentleman quite properly agreed. I am equally confident that in its approach to problems arising from change, and especially redundancy problems, the Ministry of Defence stands comparison with the very best of outside industry and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks in that respect.
To return to the question of the trade unions, the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned their responsibility at local level. I can vouch for their responsibility at national level, because one of my jobs is to be chairman of the Army Department Industrial Council. We discussed this matter at our last meeting. The trade unions discussed it with exactly the same responsibility as the right hon. Gentleman has met locally. I assure him that we shall do everything possible to


speed up a new use for the depot. I repeat that it looks very promising. All the people involved in this realise the importance of moving as quickly as possible, but we are equally convinced that this depot must close. There is no other military use for it and it will close down in October.

Mr. du Cann: The hon. Gentleman will understand that a number of questions have been going through my mind while he was speaking, some of detail and importance. I am most grateful for his most clear exposition. I hope that he will permit me to pursue this correspondence in due course either with him or his successor.

Mr. Rees: If we are to gaze into the future as to who will be doing this job we shall have an endless discussion. I am absolutely certain that the officials in the Ministry of Defence who have to deal with this matter are fully aware of the problem. Whoever is doing the job, I am confident that it will be done very properly.

Orders of the Day — A41 TRUNK ROAD, BEBINGTON (SAFETY)

1.43 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Howe: The matter with which I wish to deal concerns the position that arises on that section of the A41 trunk road which runs through my constituency in the Wirral peninsula. It is known at the Ministry, I understand, as the Birmingham to Birkenhead trunk road, but it serves other purposes which give rise to the problems to which I want to refer tonight.
In the first place it is the only effective north-south road in that part of the Wirrall peninsula. It connects the northern and southern parts of the Borough of Bebington and connects both with the County Borough of Birkenhead. There is a great deal of access on to and off the road. Bus routes come to and go off the road at many points, and apart from acting as a connecting link between north and south it acts in a different sense to sever the borough, east from west.
The essential details of the make-up of the road are as follows. Apart from the New Ferry bypass, which is dual-

carriageway at the northern end, it is throughout its length a single carriageway four-lane road. The traffic is checked as it comes along at only one set of traffic lights at the Eastham end, and in a distance of about four miles there are eight different speed limits set for the traffic using the road.
I have said that the road divides the borough and the community east from west, and it does so in a very real sense. On the east side of it, there is the large industrial estate where almost 8,000 people work. There are residential areas in Eastham Village and Bromborough Pool, and, in addition, to the industrial estate there are several major employers on the same side. There is the Cheshire County Council ambulance and fire brigade depot and what has been known until recently as the Carlett Park College of Further Education.
On the western side of the road, there is the main residential area of the borough. There is the Unilever complex of factories, where about 7,000 people work. There are several shopping centres, all the secondary schools, many of the civic and other amenities, and the whole of the residential half of the Wirral peninsula.
All this means that this north-south road necessarily has crossing it a large volume of motor traffic. For instance, I understand that there are about 1,000 cars a day entering the road at some point to travel southwards and leave it in order to enter the Vauxhall factory at Ellesmere Port. Apart from the motor traffic, there is considerable pedestrian traffic across the road.
The difficulty arises because this road, with its volume of cross-traffic both motorised and pedestrian, is carrying a traffic load along its length far in excess of that which it was designed to carry. In August last year, it was carrying 33,500 vehicles a day, that is, rather more than 50 per cent. in excess of its designed capacity of 20,000 vehicles a day, rather more than 50 per cent. in excess of the total traffic flowing up and down the M6 motorway, and 8,000 vehicles a day more than the total traffic along the A56 Frodsham-Helsby road which is shortly to be replaced by a motorway.
The state of affairs on the road has occasioned great concern to my constituents in recent months and years. I have had a growing volume of protest, with many letters from employers, individuals and organisations such as the Townswomen's Guild, the Trades Council and the Chamber of Trade. I have had representations from the borough council, which has taken vigorous action through its chairman and vice-chairman of the highways committee and through its officials. I have had representations from the police authorities, and, very recently, a petition was presented to me which had been gathered together by Mr. R. D. Jones, of 57 Heather Dene, Bromborough and Mr. and Mrs. Colquhoun, of 608 New Chester Road. This petition, signed by almost 1,000 people, drew attention to the mounting difficulties experienced on the road.
At the end of this mounting volume of protest, only a very few days ago, as many people had foreseen, a tragedy occurred at the Eastham end of the road, when two young students at the Carlett Park College of Further Education were fatally injured when trying to cross from the bus stop on the west side to go to the college on the east. They lived in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I know that the whole House will extend to their families very deep sympathy in their tragic loss.
Following that, there has been further protest and mounting anxiety, and no fewer than 600 students from the college formed a very orderly procession last week and marched more than three miles to the town hall and presented yet another petition with 1,000 signatures demanding early action to deal with the particularly dangerous circumstances at the college end of the road. That procession and that band of students were described by all who saw them as having behaved with the utmost restraint, dignity and understanding and with the utmost willingness to do what they could to improve safety conditions.
In consequence of that protest, the borough council and the police authorities have acted vigorously. There is now an arrangement whereby a police officer is on regular duty at the pedestrian cross-

ing nearest to the college at all peak pedestrian hours. I think it right to say that, bearing in mind that the students are not children, but young people, and bearing also in mind the arrangements that have been made by the police authorities and the wise willingness of the students to assure the authorities that they will co-operate in road safety measures, there is now no need for panic about safety because immediate measures have been taken to deal with the difficulties at the Carlett Park College end.
I should like to contemplate for a moment the long-term prospects for the roadway. I understand that it is not to be made into a dual carriageway road this side, at least, to 1970. I understand that the relief which will come to it from the construction of the mid-Wirral motorway cannot materialise this side of 1970. In short, there is no early prospect, and probably no late prospect, of any substantial relief.
Figures I have been given show that even when the northern tunnel, the Wallasey tunnel, is constructed, and when the mid-Wirral motorway is constructed and if a third river crossing, the southern crossing, is constructed, by 1982 the A.41 at the place about which I am speaking will be carrying almost 50,000 vehicles a day, which is well up on its present figure. If the southern river crossing, the third one, is not constructed, the A.41 will be carrying 75,000 vehicles a day by 1982, well over twice its present load. So the long-term prospect seems to be that the community of Bebington, which is already cut in half by this river of hurtling motor traffic running through the middle of it, will be severed even more decisively and the immediate danger will continue to grow.
I suggest to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and, through him, to his officials in the Ministry, that consideration could be given for the long term to the following possibilities. They may or may not have merit, but they have been suggested to me, and they certainly deserve to be studied. First, there is the possibility of taking some of the traffic that at present uses the A41 away on a completely new road to a point nearer to the banks of the Mersey. Would it not perhaps be possible and desirable to think in terms of forcing an entirely new


relief road from the southern end of the New Ferry bypass across to what is known locally as Stork Road down to the Eastham Ferry Road and then further south towards Ellesmere Port?
Secondly, and as an alternative, would it not be possible perhaps to think in terms of improving the local roads north and south to the west of the New Chester Road, the A41, and to the east of the line proposed for the mid-Wirral motorway? Thirdly, would it perhaps be possible to think in terms in the end, when we face this enormous prospective traffic increase, of putting a road on stilts above part of the A41 New Chester Road along its present course? So much for the long-term prospects.
I now ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to consider some short-term matters. First, the speed limit along the stretch of the road with which we are concerned. I have said that it varies no fewer than eight times throughout its length. Because of this, it is exceedingly difficult to enforce it. The number of prosecutions for exceeding the speed limit last year was fewer than in the year before, but one understands the difficulties that the police have, and will continue to have, as long as the limit does not remain uniform.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary's colleague told me not long ago that the Minister has now given notice of intention to make an order imposing a 40 m.p.h. limit along the whole length of the road throughout the Borough of Bebington. When does the hon. Gentleman expect that order to be made effective? When shall we see a uniform speed limit throughout the borough limited to 40 m.p.h. along the length of the road? When we have such a uniform speed limit, can we expect more use to be made of radar or, perhaps, of plain clothes policemen in appropriate cars, or even the road to be more regularly patrolled by motor-cycle patrols, the mere presence of which would persuade motorists to drive with greater care?
The second short-term factor is in terms of traffic lights and traffic engineering. Recently, as a result of representations made by the borough council, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's colleague was able to tell me that agreement has now

been given to the construction of at least four traffic light or traffic control points during the next two years at a substantial cost. Is further consideration being given, however, to the possibility of additional central islands to provide some cover for turning traffic? I have particularly in mind the difficulty arising at Bromborough Village Road South, where buses enter and leave the main A41.
Is consideration being given—it may not be an easy solution—to the possibility at some of these major junctions of putting in roundabouts? Finally, is consideration being given, particularly at the Port Causeway junction, to the possibility of a flyover or underpass at that particularly busy junction?
The last short-term matter about which I want to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is pedestrian crossings and the provision of means for pedestrians to cross the A41. Does the Minister have in mind the possibility of putting a pedestrian underpass along the line of the present railway cutting near Magazine Road, which is shortly to be taken out of railway use and could then, perhaps, become available for use as a pedestrian underpass? Apart from that site, is consideration being given to the possibility of constructing bridges or underpasses for pedestrians at any other points along the road?
I should like to deal particularly with the position at Carlett Park College of Further Education. I understand that in the light of last week's tragedy, a further meeting about this was held yesterday between the county council and borough council officials, borough council elected members, the divisional road engineer and the staff and governing body of the college. It appears now to have been agreed that the best immediate solution for access by the students from the bus stop to the college should take the form of a bridge across the road, with access to the bridge by means of ramps rather than by steps.
How quickly does the Minister visualise that bridge being constructed? To some extent, the answer to that question depends upon the next one: by whom is the bridge to be paid for? Will it be paid for, as one has been led to expect, by the county education authority, or is there a prospect that the Ministry


of Transport will pay part of it? It is a bridge that would be used not merely by people having access to the college, but by other pedestrians. The necessity for the bridge arises from the growing volume of traffic along the trunk road, for which the Ministry of Transport has responsibility.
Perhaps I may draw these isolated points together by saying a few words about the major problem which a road of this kind represents in a community of this nature. How is the community—the nation—to survive the growth of this kind of motorised monstrosity? How is the community such as the Borough of Bebington to do it? Should we not as a nation, as a community, be preparing some imaginative emergency measures for dealing with this terrific growth of traffic along roads which bisect communities in this way? Is study being given to methods of producing low-cost pedestrian bridges at high speed in many places up and down the country where this problem arises and is likely to grow in the years immediately ahead? Should we not study this problem in depth at one or two places? Would it not be worth while the Road Research Laboratory or some comparable organisation actually making a study of the implications of the A41 road where it runs through communities such as the one I have described?
I end by bringing the Joint Parliamentary Secretary back to the two specific questions with which he may be able to deal immediately. Would he see there is a uniform 40 miles an hour speed limit along this section of the A41, and could he see there is at least one pedestrian bridge across near the Carlett Park College of Further Education? Could we have an assurance that it will be forthcoming as quickly as physically it can be made available?

2.1 a.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: I should like to say a word on this subject, because although this stretch of the road is not in my constituency, nevertheless the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) neighbours mine and many of my constituents work in this area and are, therefore, deeply concerned with the problem

which the hon. and learned Member has raised. Indeed some of them approached me on this matter, and as a result I approached the Ministry of Transport to see what action might be taken to reduce the very considerable dangers which exist along this stretch of the road.
I was very pleased to hear the Ministry has taken very rapid action over the proposal to introduce a 40 mp.h. limit. It is very commendable that it should have taken action in that respect as rapidly as it has. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that a great deal more needs to be done to secure the safety of pedestrians, and, indeed, of motorists, along this road, and nothing could indicate that more plainly than the very tragic accident which recently took place there.
I would, therefore, like to join with the hon. and learned Member in making a very strenuous plea to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give very favourable consideration to this proposal which has been made for a footbridge across the road. It seems to me that this is really the only reasonable method of dealing with the situation. This is not, I think, a situation in which a pedestrian crossing would be any good, because of the speed of the traffic on the road. It is not the sort of situation in which pedestrian-controlled traffic lights are the likely answer. I think that the answer on this type of road, with traffic travelling at this speed along a road of this width, can only be a footbridge, and I would be very grateful if I could hear today from my hon. Friend that this proposal is being considered by the Ministry both at the point at which the college is, and, indeed, elsewhere on the road, because otherwise I am very much afraid that further accidents are only too likely to take place.

2.4 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): May I, first, join with the hon. and learned Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) in expressing sympathy with the families of the two students who were so tragically killed recently on this road, and in expressing sympathy, too, to their fellow students.
Death and injury on the roads are one of the greatest problems which we have


to face today. The number of accidents continues to rise, and the Government have had to take drastic action on the various aspects of road safety. It would be wrong for me to canvass the need for legislation. The House will know that recently we have had a Road Safety Bill which has been considered and which will again be introduced in the next Parliament to deal with a small part of the problems arising from road safety.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for raising this subject, because it gives me an opportunity to answer some of his questions and to tell the House about the speedy and prompt action which the Government have taken on the various suggestions that have been made from time to time about road safety in this area.
If I do not deal completely with all the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member tonight, I am sure that he will forgive me. Some additional points were put forward of which I did not have notice, and I will write to him about them.
If I may go back quickly over the history of this part of the road, the hon. and learned Member wrote to the Ministry last autumn, enclosing a letter from the town clerk of Bebington. His suggestion was that we should instal a comprehensive scheme of traffic control, or, failing that, install traffic lights at certain junctions, together with a uniform 40 m.p.h. speed limit through the length in question. Both of those points were canvassed by the hon. and learned Member tonight.
As a result of that, a meeting was held in Bebington on 13th November, 1965. It was attended by various local representatives, a representative of the divisional road engineer, and the hon. and learned Gentleman. During the discussion, it was established that a long-term road scheme was being considered by the D.R.E., and, bearing in mind the estimated future traffic flows, it seemed likely that dual three-lane carriageways would be necessary.
It would be wrong for me at this juncture to dwell further on the long-term needs of the area. Certainly, the D.R.E., as the Ministry's representative, is seized of the important traffic problems arising in the area and the need for long-term drastic action.
As the scheme was unlikely to be included in any programme until after 1969–70, it was decided that interim measures should be carried out. The borough engineer and the local police agreed to carry out an investigation, taking into account traffic movements, and prepare a programme. The Ministry agreed to look again into the suggestion of a 40 m.p.h. limit.
Subsequently, the borough engineer's proposals for interim measures were submitted to the D.R.E., and approval was given to most of them. In most cases, the D.R.E. has been able to include them in his under-£100,000 programme, the majority of them in the year 1966–67. These proposals provide, in the main, for the installation of traffic signals at certain junctions, and I think that that meets the bulk of the first part of the town clerk's suggestion.
We also agreed that a uniform speed limit would be appropriate on this stretch of the A41, and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the Minister's intention to have an Order for this length of road was announced by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in a letter to the hon. and learned Gentleman of 24th February of this year.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked when that would come into operation. The Order having been advertised in the usual way, it will come into operation on 7th April next. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that we have acted with great expedition on the suggestions canvassed by the town clerk in his letter and the subsequent meetings which have gone very fully into all these matters.
The hon. and learned Member referred to the recent tragic accident on this road, to which I, too, referred early in my speech. In a letter dated 21st February, 1966, from the borough engineer of Bebington we were informed that the college authorities and the police had suggested the provision of pedestrian-controlled traffic signals at a point near the entrance to the college. The D.R.E. considered that this would not provide a satisfactory solution to the problem because the crossing would be little used during long periods of the day, and he therefore did not agree to the suggestion.


This is a problem which arises all over the country, and certain standards have to be adhered to to ensure that this kind of crossing, if it is installed on a particular road, is respected and observed. These are the usual considerations which D.R.E.s have to take into account in tendering advice.
Following the accident on 28th February, a meeting was held on the 8th of this month. It was attended by officers of the county council, the police, representatives of the college governors, and the D.R.E., and it was decided to recommend the provision of a footbridge. Details of this are now being examined, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his usual courtesy, will not expect me tonight to be able to give his an immediate decision, as it were "off the cuff", as this suggestion emanated from a meeting which was held only a couple of days ago.
I am very much aware of the traffic problems in this area, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to so graphically, and the D.R.E. informs me that there is a great problem there. I think that the House can be satisfied that we have acted promptly on the suggestions which have been put to us from time to time, and I have indicated what action we have taken about them. I shall bear in mind the suggestions which have been made tonight. I am sure that they are valuable, and we shall act as speedily on them as we have on others.

Orders of the Day — SHORT BROS. & HARLAND

2.13 a.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I should like, first, to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation for being here at this late hour to deal with the problems which I wish to raise. It is perhaps fortunate that I am here, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be the first to acknowledge when he hears that when flying over to Belfast today, two of my colleagues and I were nearly caught in a burning aircraft. Due to the prompt action of the crew we all got out of the aircraft safely and I was able to continue my journey, speak at two meetings in Belfast, and return to raise this subject in the House.
That short introduction illustrates one of the points that I wish to make. It illustrates the large and growing part which air transport is playing in the life of the community and the important rôle that it plays in enabling not only Members of Parliament, but others, to carry on business in two widely separated cities on the same day. This is a rapidly increasing need, and I should like that fact to form the background to my remarks.
With an aircraft industry growing as it must do to meet rapidly developing civil requirements, both for transport and for freight planes, it is a great pity to see the kind of action that we have seen during the past year and a half of a Labour Government, whereby this country's aircraft industry has been cut down, and, indeed, undermined, by many of their policies.
This particularly affects the firm of Short Bros, and Harland, in my constituency. This firm, as I mentioned in the debate on the Plowden Report, has a long and proud history. It was the first company in the world to produce aircraft in series. It produced the first all-metal aircraft in 1920, and a wonderful range of flying boats, which all hon. Members will acknowledge, particularly the Empire flying boats, which were used to extend the operations of British Overseas Airways and develop the reputation of that company before the war.
During the war the famous aircraft produced by this company included the Sunderland flying boat and the Stirling bomber, and since the war the designers of Short Bros, have produced many advanced projects, including the multi-jet vertical take-off plane, which led the world in this type of development, and the SC5, which had a variable sweep and which led the way to the variable geometry aircraft upon which Britain will be embarking with France.
The company has been operating in Northern Ireland for about 30 years, and in that time has built up a large team of very skilled craftsmen and aeronautical engineers. The firm now employs about 8,000 men, and provides very valuable employment in this part of the United Kingdom, where we experience more difficulty in finding work—particularly skilled work of this nature, for men—


than any other part of the United Kingdom. With an unemployment rate of over 6½ per cent., which covers 7·2 per cent of all males employed, the threat to the firm of Short Bros, is particularly disturbing.
The company has the technical ability to produce aircraft which are as good as those produced anywhere else in the world. It is situated in Belfast, where there is an ample supply of skilled labour. It has an apprenticeship training school, which is a very valuable asset in Northern Ireland. If there is a rapid rundown in employment in Short Bros, it would be practically impossible for the 4,000 men mentioned in the Plowden Report to find alternative employment of a similar nature in Northern Ireland.
The company has always been a technological leader. It has helped Northern Ireland to attract other new industries, particularly since the war. It has helped the Government of Northern Ireland—and the Ministry of Commerce in Belfast, in particular—to establish to the satisfaction of any interested manufacturers, the ability of the workmen of Belfast to carry out the most intricate and skilled operations. They have only to walk round Short Bros., and to see such things as the missile factory producing the Seacat, which is one of our biggest export earners in missiles; the work of analog computers; the aircraft factory, and the production of the vertical takeoff aircraft—the SCI—to be convinced that the workpeople of Belfast are as good as any that one can find anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Therefore, if the factory is to be run down or closed down Northern Ireland will lose this technological leader—this firm which is an example of the skill and craftsmanship of the Northern Ireland workers, and which has also been a training base for many skilled men—men who, in the recent craft examinations, won several first places in skills among entrants who came from all over the United Kingdom. The product of Short Brothers and Harland is ideal for the economy of Northern Ireland. There is difficulty in Northern Ireland in finding an industry which will work efficiently and which is not hampered by the process of bringing material from Great Britain

and elsewhere and then exporting the product.
The product of an aircraft factory has a very low material content and a very high man-hour content. Therefore, such a product is ideal for Northern Ireland. It can be flown out from an aerodrome which is right on the doorstep, and the raw materials can be brought to the doorstep. I do not apologise for labouring this point, because I should like to draw to the attention of the House certain statements made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers during the course of this Parliament.
The Prime Minister said on 2nd February, 1965, of the aircraft industry as a whole:
What this House wants to ensure and what the state of our economy demands is a healthy and balanced aircraft industry, an industry which never again becomes virtually dependent for its existence on one highly costly venture of this kind"—
He was referring to the TSR2.
…the Government believe that, properly deployed on the right types of work, the aircraft industry has an important and vital role to play both in provision for our defences and in its contribution to the national economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 936.]
I would stress that that last sentiment applies more particularly to Short Bros, and Harland than to any other firm in the aircraft industry.
This point is brought home by a reading of a statement by the Secretary of State for Defence on 6th April, 1965:
While we in this country cannot afford in the future to undertake a wide range of highly sophisticated projects by ourselves, it is the Government's firm intention to retain a lively and viable aircraft and equipment industry of a size consistent with our resources and needs, both in military and civil aviation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1965: Vol. 710, c. 338.]
The former Minister of Aviation, who is now Home Secretary, said on 9th February:
I turn from employment to projects which, geared to its resources, can offer the industry a successful role in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1965: Vol. 706, c. 239.]
In a leaflet circulated in Preston before the last election, the Labour Party said:
There is a good future for the British aircraft industry under a Labour Government.
What did this statement lead to? On taking office, the Government cancelled three of the most advanced projects of the


British aircraft industry—the HS681, the new freighter project, the P1154, the supersonic vertical take-off aircraft being developed by Hawker Siddeley, and the TSR2, which was probably one of the most advanced strike and reconnaissance aircraft being developed anywhere in the world, and with a performance which I do not think any other aircraft would be able to equal in getting in low following the contours below the radar barrier and striking home to the heart of any potential enemy.
The former Minister of Aviation said on 9th February, 1965:
In this country today one of our greatest shortages is skilled labour. If we are to improve our economic performance we just cannot allow that most vital national resource to be used other than to the best possible advantage. I am not convinced that this is so in the aircraft industry today. But there is no point in releasing labour unless it is to be quickly reabsorbed in more productive work. In any changes we shall, therefore, have the fullest regard to where and how far that is possible. We are determined not to leave skilled labour lying idle. If retraining is necessary it will be energetically provided. The aircraft industry is spread fairly widely over the country. Much, but not all of it, is in areas of very full employment. If redundancies are necessary, we shall look to the firms to consult fully with us—they live, after all, on public money—and concentrate these redundancies in the most labour-scarce areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 706; 9th February, 1965: Vol. 706, c. 236.]
I repeat—the Minister of Aviation said that we should concentrate the redundancies in the most labour-scarce areas. Would he apply that passage to the position of Short Bros, and Harland? What steps have the Government taken to provide alternative employment?
A consultants' report released to the Government at the end of last year advised diversification at Short Bros, and Harland. What steps have been taken to further that objective and what retraining has taken place in the last three months? The Minister of Aviation said in the debate on the Plowden Report that there would be a substantial rundown in the next 12 months—a rundown of 4,000 men in Short Bros, and Harland. The position is urgent, but nothing has been done in the last three months.
The former Minister of Aviation said that such a rundown would not take place in an area such as Northern Ireland, but would be concentrated in labour-scarce

areas. The Government have blatantly broken the promise in that statement.
May I quote from two other speeches? The first was on 13th April, 1965, when the Minister of Defence, speaking of the dollar costs of a possible TSR2 replacement, said:
The bulk of our dollar payments would be spread fairly evenly over the following eight years. There is every reason to suppose that if we make proper use of the released skill and resources that will result from this cancellation there should by then be a substantial improvement in Britain's balance of payments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1965; Vol. 710 c. 1204.]
What steps are being taken to make proper use of the skilled men who are to be released in Short Bros, and Harland? Does the Minister realise that many of these highly skilled men are leaving the country?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 6th April, 1965, speaking of the TSR2:
It has, and would have, diverted hundreds of factories employing thousands of skilled and semi-skilled men from other work of national importance, including exports in particular…Although there will be a significant number of redundancies in the aircraft industry, employment conditions generally are at the moment very favourable. There is an intense demand for highly skilled men of the kind who are working on this project, as has been shown by the eagerness of employers to recruit the men who have been released by our earlier aircraft decisions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1965; Vol. 710 c. 282.]
What eagerness on the part of employers? It has been eagerness by the employers of South Africa and the United States to take up men from our aircraft industry. The Minister knows that the Lockheed Company have set up a design centre in the United Kingdom to employ skilled men discharged from our aircraft industry—to employ them in designing for the United States. Is this the way in which we are to use these highly skilled men?
The Home Secretary, then Minister of Aviation, said on 9th February, 1965:
There is a problem for the design staff, and we are looking at alternative means of employment but on these figures there is no question of destroying, or coming near to destroying, our design capability…. Even design teams are not usefully employed in the industry unless they are designing planes for which there is a real demand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1965; Vol. 706 c. 239.]
I am sure the hon. Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend the shadow Minister


of Aviation in the defence debate, two days ago reporting the great anxiety felt by the British Aircraft Corporation at the loss of its leading designers. Since then I have heard from one of the leading directors of Hawker Siddeley, who is apprehensive at the loss of design staff. What applies to the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley also applies to Short Bros. & Harland. This industry is being completely demoralised.
I have read statements made by the Government during the past year, which have either been recklessly and carelessly made or have been deliberately broken by the Government. The first Secretary of State said in Belfast on 28th May last:
I would repeat the assurances given here by my colleague, the Minister of Aviation, only the other day. 'Shorts is part of the British aircraft industry and will remain part of it'. I can assure you that Shorts will fulfil their commitments in the matter of delivery or after-sales service to anyone who has bought, or intends to buy, aircraft or guided weapons from your production lines here in Belfast. American and other competitors take note.
The former Minister of Aviation, the present Home Secretary, is reported in the Financial Times of 19th May last as having said:
'Shorts is part of the British aircraft industry and will remain part of it'. He affirmed the Government's intention that the company should continue its work in the missile as well as the aircraft field. He also said that Shorts is a unit of great technical value, not only to Northern Ireland but to the United Kingdom as a whole.
The first Secretary, replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), who I am pleased to see is present, said:
Certainly. The Minister of Aviation has said this."—
that was the pledge which the Minister of Aviation had given on the future of Shorts, and with which my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry had taxed him. He continued:
I repeat it here and now. I think it would be very good for Shorts, and for Northern Ireland, if there were diversification of its interests and if it were not linked to this one form of enterprise; but, having said that, we have both of us made clear—using exactly the same words—that Shorts is in the aircraft industry, it will remain part of the aircraft industry and anyone who has bought or is thinking of buying any of its excellent products can be quite sure that the company will be able to fulfil its after-sales service and

so on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1965: Vol. 713, c. 1933.]
The right hon. Gentleman is reported on 2nd February, 1965, as saying:
The hon. Gentleman can go and find out.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to note these words:
I am making a carefully considered statement and I think that he will find that Short Bros, and Harland, and Belfast, are looked after by this Government far better than by the last."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1965; Vol. 705. c. 1017.]
How can any Minister make a statement like, that Short Bros, and Harland is looked after by this Government far better than by the previous Government, when the company is being cut in half by the Government? I ask the House to consider carefully the position of Short Bros, and Harland.
The Minister of Defence said on Tuesday in the House that the Government had decided to purchase the C130—that is, the American Hercules freighter—instead of the HS681. Had the Government considered buying some Belfast freighter aircraft instead? Had not the Government realised that the Hercules is an old aircraft—that it is, in fact, the Hercules F and K and model stocks of the A? Instead, the Government could have bought the Belfast freighter, which has twice the hold, 12 × 12 compared with 9 × 10, a hold one-third longer than the Hercules which proved useful the other day in taking a hovercraft to New Zealand. No other aircraft in the world could have done that.
The Belfast is capable of taking a Chieftain tank and has an enormous range. The Belfast has a tremendous capacity for "stretch" and, with a developed engine and an enlarged propeller—of, say, 18 to 20 ft. instead of its present 16 ft.—it would have an even increased carrying capacity. In any case, why did the Government choose the Hercules when the Belfast can carry 30 tons, which is almost double that of the Hercules?
Remembering that the Belfast is a new aircraft, why could not the Government have purchased 10 more of these in place of at least part of the order for the American Hercules aircraft? Are the Government not aware that this country must pay all the development costs of the Belfast and that, by buying Belfasts, we would be paying for only the material


and labour, the development costs having been written off, anyway?
Have the Government been "taken for a ride" by the Americans? How was the Minister of Defence able to say on Tuesday that he had been promised a fixed price of £2½ million for the F111, an aircraft which requires substantial modification and further development and which will not be in production for several years? If the United States Government are offering a firm price for the F111 and a substantially cut-priced Hercules, are they not doing so deliberately to damage the British aircraft industry?
Have the Government considered the export figures of the British aircraft industry compared with the American industry? Our industry, which is about one-fifth the size of the American industry, has recently exported about 50 per cent. in value of what the United States has been selling abroad. In 1958 and 1959 the British industry exported £150 million and £142 million worth of aircraft respectively, compared with American exports of £340 million and £269 million for those two years.
Since the war the British aircraft industry has earned for Britain £1,600 million in foreign currency. During the first 10 months of last year it earned £107 million, which represented an improvement on the previous year, when it earned £90 million. The British aircraft industry is, therefore, a small, lively industry which has exported aircraft in the civil field—with, for example, the Viscount—and in the military field—with, say, the Canberras and Hunters. These have been some of the main competitors of the American aircraft industry. We have been a thorn in their flesh.
If one wants proof that the American Government and that country's aircraft industry wish to destroy the British aircraft industry, one need only think of the fantastic guaranteed prices which have been quoted for the F111 and other aircraft. The Australians recently bought some F111s and had to pay a good deal more than we will be paying. Why? Do we have a guaranteed price for the spare parts which we will have to pro-chase from the Americans? If, as a result of these purchases, the British aircraft industry goes to the wall, and if

Hawkers and B.A.C. go, so that we cannot obtain the necessary skilled technical staff and designers—the cream of the industry—what price will we then have to pay for the next generation of American aircraft? And does not America know this? Why are we not buying the F111 from the company producing it? Why have we to buy it from the American Government? This, again, I suggest is a "phoney" arrangement.
I am afraid that the Government's policies will leave Britain completely dependent on the United States for this vital link of our defences. It is essential for this country that we have a strong and viable aircraft industry, but how can we have a strong and viable aircraft industry if the Government take the guts out of it by cancelling all military orders? Do they not realise—have they not compared the position of the British aircraft industry with tht of other aircraft industries in the world—that about 80 per cent. of American orders for their aircraft industry are to be found in the field of defence?
In the United States, about 60 per cent. of the orders come in the field of defence. These military orders are used to subsidise the American aircraft industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman opposite does not think that we can take away all the military side and leave the civil side to get on with it. We are placing our civil side of the industry at a tremendous disadvantage if we do not have a military side to help with the design and research necessary to make us viable in the civil field.
I have already mentioned the Belfast. Before this Parliament comes to an end, I should like the Government to say that they will reconsider their decision to buy the C130 Hercules aircraft and, instead, taking some more Belfasts, for the reasons I have given; that they will consider developing an Improved Tyne engine, because it is only with an aircraft like this that we can meet our world-wide commitments, particularly if we are not to have an aircraft carrier programme in the future. How do they expect to transport large numbers of men and large quantities of equipment during the next 15 years? Will the Hercules still be in service? It is almost obsolete now—what aircraft is to be used when the Hercules comes out of service?
Short Bros, has developed the Skyvan on its own. It is to be noted and welcomed that within the last two days a notable order has been won from Anseit. Who is this man Ansett? He is the man in Australia who considered the Trident, and turned it down. He bought the Boeing 727 instead. He considered buying the BAC111, and turned that down for an American aircraft. He considered buying the VC10, and turned that down. He is one of the toughest customers in the world today. He considered an American aircraft and the Skyvan, and decided that the Skyvan was the best aircraft available.
This represents a tremendous breakthrough for Short Bros, and Harlands, which may well lead to the sale of many more Skyvans. The number might run into hundreds. But what are the Government doing about providing this aircraft? Would they not consider laying down a production line, as must be done, for the Skyvan? Already 20 of these aircraft have been built, there have been a number of confirmed orders, and the prospect of more, not only from Australia but from Canada, and even from Italy.
The Skyvan is particularly suited to tough conditions where there are high-altitude airfields with short runways and high humidity. Ansett intends to use them in, among other places, New Guinea, one of the toughest areas in the world. But, at the same time, it is being purchased by an Italian airline. The Italian company has decided that the Skyvan is the appropriate and ideal type of aircraft for the better conditions in Europe.
This is an aircraft in which the Government should have some confidence. They should show their confidence by laying down a line so that we could produce the aircraft and offer reasonable delivery dates and terms of delivery. Otherwise, we shall find the market running from under our feet because we have not the courage of our convictions. What would Boeing or Douglas do with a plane such as the Skyvan which is showing such promise throughout the world?
The Government should look again at their missile requirements. Short Bros, has developed the Seacat which has

earned more for this country than any other single missile. The firm has developed a version suitable for the Army, the Tigercat. It has been bought by the R.A.F. Regiment. Why do the Government not buy it for the Army? It is a light and easily handled missile which would be very suitable for protecting the Army from low-flying attack. It is a missile which we are already using and which would cost little to service. If it were sold to the Army and there were large-scale production there would be the prospect of many sales overseas. Another missile is the Blowpipe. I put a Question in the House asking the Minister to reconsider his decision in respect of this missile.
My final point concerns the VFW614. This is a sorry story. Shorts has been collaborating with Fokkers for the production of the F28. As a result of that successful collaboration, which was applauded by the Plowden Committee, Shorts was invited to collaborate in producing a twin-jet small passenger aircraft to take the place of the Dakota DC3, a plane for which there is a wide market. Fokkers is one of the most successful aircraft companies in the world. It saw a great potential in this aircraft and asked Shorts to take a 40 per cent. share in the production. What are the Government doing about this? I have read the pledges given by the Government to Short Bros, and to the aircraft industry as a whole. The Government have refused to advance the necessary £6 million to allow Shorts to take a 40 per cent. share in the production of this aircraft.
This would be a reasonable investment for the Government because the £6 million would come back in a short time in sales. If the Government fight shy of paying £6 million, why do they not suggest that Shorts should take some other share to continue to work with Fokkers on this project? For example, it would be possible for the expenditure of £2 million to have a 15 per cent. or a 20 per cent. share in the production. The Parliamentary Secretary might ask why we should back Shorts in this project. If the Government are to fulfil their pledges to the aircraft industry and particularly to this company, they must be prepared


to back the type of collaboration recommended by the Plowden Committee Report. If the firm of Shorts does not collaborate with VFW, the chances are that VFW will find another partner, perhaps in France, to produce this aircraft.
The Government have been pushing Hawker Siddeley, but the consortium in Europe does not want to collaborate with Fokker on the Hawker Siddeley project, which is a larger plane with larger seating capacity. It is not an aircraft to meet the requirements envisaged by Fokkers who are already producing their own Fellowship aircraft, the F28. To ask them to collaborate with Hawker Siddeley would be to ask them to collaborate on the production of an aircraft which would be a direct competitor of an aircraft which they are now trying to sell themselves. What they want is a smaller aircraft and they are still anxious that Shorts should share in its production.
For all the reasons I have given, I ask the Government to reconsider, to reconsider in order to support not only Shorts, but the British aircraft industry as a whole and to help it to remain viable and strong, to reconsider a promising project, a project of the kind which this country wants to develop in the type of collaboration with manufacturers abroad which was highly recommended by Lord Plowden's Committee.
Finally, I ask the hon. Gentleman to make a definite statement. As the House knows, we have been asking for a statement month after month for the year and a half that the Government have been in office. Shorts was threatened with the early cancellation of the HS681. The previous Government promised Shorts one third of the work in manufacturing the air frame of that plane and that would have provided employment for 6,000 or 7,000 men. But we were told that a committee had been set up and that no definite statement could be made until it had reported. We were told that a special firm of consultants, Arthur Little, was looking into the position of Short Bros, and Harland. But by the end of the debate on the Plowden Report there had still not been a clear statement about the future of Shorts.
Eighteen months have gone by since the first cancellations. In the debate on

the Plowden Report the Minister admitted that a rundown was imminent and that it would be heavy—about 50 per cent. The Government cannot possibly leave office without having made a clear statement about their intentions if returned to office—and I pray to goodness that they will not be for the sake of the aircraft industry—about the future of Shorts and the industry. They should do that for the sake not only of the 4,000 men at Shorts, but for their wives and families and the traders who depend upon them for their livelihoods. If Shorts is to be run down, the Government must give some indication of what other work they are to provide for these men and say how urgently they regard the problem and when they are to get on with it.

2.53 a.m.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: I hope that the House will not think me impertinent for taking part in a debate concerning Short Bros. and Harland. The only thing which my constituency in County Durham has in common with Northern Ireland is a B.B.C. broadcasting wavelength. My interest stems from the fact that before coming to the House I was for many years an official of the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union. Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity of meeting a deputation from Shorts, representing about 800 clerical and administrative employees in that firm.
As a result of that meeting, I said that if the opportunity arose for a debate on this matter, I would endeavour to advise the House of the situation as the members of that deputation saw it. Apparently, they had little faith in the present representation. I asked them whether they had taken up the matter with Members of Parliament for Belfast and they said that they had done so on many occasions and that they were highly dissatisfied with the sort of attention which was being given to their problems—

Mr. McMaster: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that last Friday there was a symposium of all the trade unions at Short Bros, and Harland which was attended by the Ulster Unionist Members and that a motion was passed, with loud acclamation, in praise of the work done by the Ulster Members on behalf of Shorts and that we were asked to continue our efforts and to press the Government most


strongly for a clear statement before Parliament was dissolved?

Mr. Fletcher: I am well aware of that meeting. The hon. Member did not allow me to conclude my sentence. I was about to say that they were highly dissatisfied with the fact that the hon. Member and his colleagues have been Members in office for 13 years when unemployment in Northern Ireland has been very much in excess of the present 7 per cent. on many occasions.
The hon. Member appears to be shaking his head, but this is true. It has been heavier than it is today. His right hon. Friends did little or nothing to bring industry to Northern Ireland and yet he makes, with synthetic indignation, an attack on the Government for not doing in 15 months what he and his hon. and right hon. Friends have failed to do over the last 13 years. Little wonder, therefore, that many workers at Shorts are dissatisfied with what has happened in the past.
I have great sympathy with the situation of the employees at Short Bros. Beginning in June of this year about 4,000 workpeople will become redundant. I have been dealing with this problem in my constituency in connection with the closure of railway workshops and I think that the workers at Shorts have a case for saying to the Government that if redundancy is taking place alternative industry should be directed to the city. I know that at the moment, arising from the Plowden Report and the consideration which the Government have given to the question, it seems likely that the future labour force, perhaps at the end of the year, will be in the region of 4,000. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation whether he has considered the representations which have been made to him to finance some portion of the production that may arise from the discussions which have taken place about the F28 and the replacement for the DC3—the VFW614.
I know that this will require a good deal of capital and that it is essential that the Government should estimate what sales there are likely to be if Government money is invested. No reasonable person can expect the Government to invest funds in an aircraft industry if it is a hidden subsidy. We have these problems

of transition on the railways and in the coalmining industry where work is no longer viable, where mines and railway lines are no longer economic and as a consequence the labour force has to be cut. The Plowden Report suggests that the labour force in the aircraft industry must be reduced from a quarter of a million to 200,000. Although the labour force is contracting by about 20 per cent. in the country as a whole, it is contracting in Northern Ireland by 50 per cent. and one would be justified in asking whether Northern Ireland is taking an unfair share of the contraction in the labour force.
This problem should have been tackled in 1957, when the previous Government produced their White Paper, because Short Bros. was excluded at that time from the suggested merger which has now come into fruition. Consequently, Shorts is now suffering from the fact that it has been left out on a limb. The Government should explore every avenue to try to bring additional aircraft work to Shorts. I know that this will not be easy. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said that the Government should give more and bigger contracts to our own aircraft industry, but he must realise what the reality of the situation is. The Americans, with their world market and a huge internal market, can produce runs of 1,000 aircraft much more economically than our own industry can with production restricted to runs of 100 instead of 1,000. Obviously, one result of their economic advantage is that the Americans can scoop the market. No one can justify waste of money by the Government. It is as uneconomic for us to buy our own aircraft at twice the price which we should pay the Americans for a similar machine as it would be to tell 1,000 men to dig a hole in the ground and another 1,000 to fill it in again. It is a waste of the nation's resources.
The industry must first be a viable industry. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give us facts and figures about the discussions which have taken place, and are to take place with European manufacturers, in order to see whether we can get a viable scheme going, subsidised by Government funds. If nothing is possible in that direction, then the Government ought to be in a position to tell us what alternative industry will be allocated to Northern


Ireland. The effect of 4,000 workers being made redundant at a time when unemployment is about 7 per cent. will not be to add just 4,000 to the number of unemployed. There will be others affected in the service industries, shop keepers, and so on, so that unemployment can be expected to grow rapidly.
We have had this problem in the North-East, in an area of high unemployment, but, thanks to the measures which the Government have taken, our level of unemployment is now just a little over 2 per cent. Nevertheless, because Northern Ireland has been so badly misrepresented in the past, and is likely to be in the future, largely because of its geographical position, people there are suffering economically. It is ironic that, while the labour force in Belfast is to be reduced by 4,000, the aircraft industry in Preston tells us that it is 1,000 skilled men short. It seems that there is a maldistribution of aircraft work.
I have taken part in the debate because, as a former official of the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union, I was particularly impressed by the deputation which came to see me to put the problems of the clerical workers to me. I promised that deputation that, if I had an opportunity to intervene, I would pass on those representations to my own Front Bench. Has every investigation been made to see whether we can secure a satisfactory outcome from co-operation with European firms? Is it possible for the Government to invest in an economic way, that is, with the prospect of a return, in such a project? If so, what effect would it have on the labour force?
Next, what about alternative employment? I make the point in this context as I have done it in the context of railway workshop closures in my own constituency, where I have agitated for new industries to be brought in to absorb people displaced by redundancy. Therefore, I am bound to ask whether the Government have any plans for other engineering projects to be steered to Northern Ireland to take up this slack.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Belfast, East made a pre-election speech—we have had many of them in the last week or two—but I think that the workers in Northern Ireland must recognise, and

certainly would recognise if they were in this House, that the most effective way of getting the Government to take an interest in their problems is to elect people who understand the problems of Northern Ireland, people who would be prepared to back the Government.
The hon. Member said that he hopes that the Labour Government will not be returned at the General Election. But I am certain that many tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland thank the Labour Government for what they have done in their short term of office. It is true that unemployment is very high at the moment in Belfast and Northern Ireland, but it is certainly lower than it has been in many periods of the 13 years of Tory rule. I think that as a consequence of this many working people in Northern Ireland are very grateful that we have had a Labour Government, and that this will be reflected on 31st March.
I should not be in the least surprised if some of the hon. Members representing Northern Ireland did not receive a shock as a result of the General Election.

3.7 a.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: If my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) made a somewhat comprehensive speech I make no complaint of it, even though he took from me most of the points that I wanted to make. I am grateful that he made the speech, for it has been worth my while to stay here to pay tribute to the pertinacity with which he has pursued the case of his constituents. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding in agreement.
This is entirely in contradistinction to what was said by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher). We can dismiss his speech for the rubbish that it was. If he had been in the House a little longer he would have known that not only trade unionists, managements and many others have paid tribute to my hon. Friend's dogged determination in these matters, but so have hon. Members on both sides of the House and from the Government Front Bench. However, we must not deny the hon. Member for Darlington the last few hours which he will have as a Member of Parliament. He must enjoy them to the full while he can. I will not spoil them for him now.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done tonight. After a little mishap in an aircraft going to Belfast this morning—not a Shorts aircraft, I am glad to say—he managed to get there and made two speeches and then flew back here to represent his constituents tonight. This is an example that the hon. Member for Darlington, if he ever gets the opportunity again, which is unlikely, might follow.
My hon. Friend would, I know, have been supported by other Members representing Belfast constituencies and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) had they known of the debate in time.
I shall now confine myself to asking the Minister one or two small but important and specific questions. My hon. Friend showed a very proper concern for the firm's employment position, in particular. There is, of course, a grave situation. While he was speaking of it, he paid tribute, very rightly, to the great record of Short Bros, and to the management for what it has tried to do in the past.
My first question to the Minister concerns the position of the Skyvan. We have been very glad to hear that there has been something of a breakthrough in recent times. What does he visualise as the future employment force in regard to the Skyvan? I know that this is a difficult question to answer, because we cannot tell just how far the breakthrough will go, but he may be able to give it as a figure in some ratio to the Plowden figure of 4,000. If he can give us an idea of the employment possibilities in relation to the Skyvan we should like to know.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us any forecast about the likely employment situation at Shorts for missiles, the prospects for the Seacat, which has the great record which my hon. Friend mentioned, the Tigercat and the future of the Blowpipe?
My hon. Friend stressed the problem which we in Northern Ireland as a whole face concerning unskilled labour. In this connection he very rightly expressed his concern about the Shorts school. If the Plowden figure comes about and the reduction in employment is

4,000, does the Minister see any danger to the future of that school? Is there a serious danger that that great technological training asset, which has played a considerable part in the economic life of Northern Ireland, might be in jeopardy? We would like reassurance about this.
I can confirm from personal experience during the last few days that what my hon. Friend has said about other countries looking for the skilled labour which, they have been led to believe from statements which we have heard from time to time, might unfortunately become available from Shorts is only too true. I heard of a team from the United States being in Belfast for this very purpose only a few days ago.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of the consultants' report. The Minister will remember that this was first mentioned in the House on 2nd February, 1965, quite a long time ago. I do not underestimate the difficulties which the consultants will have, particularly if they are looking for new forms of diversification. We all know of the diversification which Shorts itself has undertaken—milk churns, analog computers, and the rest. I do not know whether Shorts actually made a Dalek, but it would not surprise me to hear that it had. It has tried almost everything under the sun. Can we now have news about the consultants' report? Has the Minister anything new to tell us in that respect?
The other prospect which must worry my hon. Friend, representing Belfast, East, is the loss of spending power which must occur as a result of any further rundown of Shorts. This is a serious matter in a part of Belfast which particularly needs that spending power, perhaps more than any other.
I am tempted by the unfortunate intervention of the hon. Member for Darlington to engage in polemics and to read some extracts from the manifesto upon which Labour candidates in Northern Ireland fought the last Election, but I shall restrain myself. I merely suggest to the hon. Member that he might turn it up for himself, and that if he does I think he will feel some sense of shame.
What we are anxious to hear tonight is whether the Minister can tell us that


he can give some alleviation of the anxiety which the Plowden Report and the Government's attitude thereto have caused to those working in the firm and whether he can hold out some comfort for them. For a reason which is not wholly inexplicable, during recent days we have had a great many statements, well designed for their purpose, by a great many Ministers in the Government. We must simply hope that this Minister, too, has something comfortable to offer us tonight by way of reassurance.

3.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. John Stone-house): The House has heard a very useful debate in the last hour, and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) who took the opportunity of pursuing this subject. I should like to agree with those remarks which have been made about his pertinacity in pursuing the interests of his constituents, as he has on a number of occasions in the last 17 months.
I only regret that the hon. Gentleman's speech, which had a great deal of information in it, was marred by a number of excessive and exaggerated comments, though I appreciate his concern about the future of Shorts and the future employment prospects of his constituents who have relied on Shorts in the past. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions, and I shall do my best to reply to them, though in a fairly short speech, for I am sure the House does not wish to be delayed too long.
Before proceeding I should like to say how glad I am that the hon. Gentleman is in his place, having escaped what perhaps might have been a more unfortunate accident than the one in which he was involved today on his way to Belfast.
The position of Shorts is that it has relied to a very large extent on projects which are bound to run down within the next year and a half. In particular, the 10 Belfast aircraft which are being bought by the R.A.F. will be constructed and finished within the next 18 months, and 27 per cent. of the manpower of Shorts are employed on this construction. Furthermore, about a quarter of the manpower of Shorts has been employed on the construction of the front fuselage

of the VC10 for the R.A.F. This work also will run down during the next year and a half. Shorts has been unable to find major aircraft work which will take up the slack of the men who have run out of the work I have referred to.
The Ministry has done its best to assist Shorts in trying to find customers, particularly for the Belfast, but although we pursued a great number of enquiries and have had detailed talks with prospective customers, from the United States to Afghanistan, regrettably those companies have not seen their way clear to buy the Belfast. Also regrettably perhaps to Shorts, the R.A.F. sees no further requirement for the Belfast. The 10 it is buying are sufficient for its requirements. I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, East, speaking on behalf of his constituents as taxpayers, will agree that it would be quite wrong for the R.A.F., in order to keep employment going at a particular firm artificially to buy more aircraft than it requires, and that would have been the position if the R.A.F. had been made to buy more.
As for the Skyvan, we are very pleased indeed that Ansett, of Australia, have decided to buy three of this plane. I was in Australia two months ago and had the opportunity of speaking to Mr. Ansett about the prospects of the Sky-van. I gave the assurance on behalf of the Government that there would be every guarantee that Shorts would honour its commitments with regard to the supply of spares and after-sales service for the Skyvan, and I am glad to repeat that here tonight, and what my right hon. Friends the First Secretary of State and the Home Secretary have said on this question I fully endorse. We know that Shorts will honour its commitments to any customers for the Skyvan in years to come.
I now deal with the particular question about the numbers of men who will be employed on Skyvan development and production. Unfortunately, it is a small aircraft which absorbs only a small number of men, particular compared with the number of men employed on the Belfast. Only about 650 men are employed on Skyvan, and even with a great many orders for this aircraft it will only be a question of some hundreds and not thousands of men being employed.


The problem of redundancy concerns 4,000 men. We cannot expect the majority, or even a large proportion, of them to be employed on Skyvan production.
It is quite untrue to say, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, that we have not given support to this Skyvan production line. We have given support. We supported the first batch of 10 aircraft, and we have guaranteed a bank loan for the second batch of 10. There has been a request made to us in the last few weeks for a further batch of aircraft to be produced, and we are now considering this proposal.
We hope that the Skyvan will have many more customers, because it is a very good aircraft. I am sure that, particularly in Australia, there will be many more demands for it, and we hope that it will be a success. Unfortunately, in the short term, it will not make a sizeable impact on the employment position at Shorts.

Mr, McMaster: I should like to make it quite clear that the company and everyone I know are most appreciative of the work that the hon. Gentleman did in Australia in helping to sell it. In case we leave a wrong impression about the Belfast, it should be made clear that the R.A.F. welcomes it. I have spoken to people who have flown it both in the Middle East and in Britain, and they think that it is a very fine aircraft.

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. However, the R.A.F. does not have a requirement for any more Belfasts, so it cannot have any influence on the employment position in the years ahead.
A number of questions have been raised about the VFW614. That project is a German design, as the hon. Gentleman said, intended as a replacement for the DC3. There is obviously a need for such a replacement, but, in our view, that aircraft does not have the market prospects that it needs in order to justify the expenditure proposed to be put into it. Certainly, an investment of £6 million by the Government could not be justified for an aircraft that will not be a success.
It is quite wrong to assume that we can make a success of a project simply because we collaborate with European partners. It may be that we will share

the penalty of a failure, but in our view it is not wise to go ahead with projects, either on our own or in collaboration with Europe, unless we are satisfied that they can be successful. We do not believe that this design will be.
If the main airframe firm developing the plane, assuming it goes ahead, invites Shorts to become a subcontractor, that has not been ruled out. We hope that it will have an opportunity. Certainly, we do not rule that out. We do rule out the possibility of the Government putting a very large sum of money into the development of an aircraft for which we see no great market in the future.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the apprenticeship school. I agree with him that it is a very important school. I saw its work for myself last year when I went to Belfast, and it is our hope that the work of the school can continue. It is an important factor in the economy of Belfast.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about missile development. There are orders for Seacat which will keep 15 per cent. or so of the manpower at Shorts fully employed for the next five years. I have nothing to add at present on Tigercat and Blowpipe.
The House heard a most interesting and well informed intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher). I was glad that he spoke, because he helped to put a number of points into perspective. It is true, as he said, that the unemployment position in Ulster is better now than it was during many years when the Conservatives were in power.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Has the hon. Gentleman ever looked back to the days of the first Labour Government, since he is going back in his memory? Would he care to look back and see what was the unemployment figure then, because he would be truly appalled if he did?

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not want to go back that far, but, two years ago, the number of wholly unemployed was 37,300. Today, it is 30,400, which means that there has been a drop of 7,000. Two years ago there were 1,300 unfilled jobs, today there are 3,600, so what my hon. Friend said is correct. The unemployment position is not as serious now as it was even just two years ago.
We have been able to make a sizeable impact on the position there, and we hope that we can make an even bigger impact in the years ahead, because we want the people of Northern Ireland to have opportunities for useful and constructive work. We do not want them, and I am sure that they do not want, to be made the objects of charity, sustained in an industry which is not producing products which are economically viable. We want them to be involved in useful, viable employment, and that will be our objective. When we come back here next month, we shall be pursuing every possible means of providing other work for the men who will be made redundant from aircraft work at Shorts.
I give an assurance that every endeavour will be made to provide retraining for those who cannot immediately be absorbed in some other employment. Many of the men who will be made redundant will, I understand, be absorbed fairly quickly. Our concern is to see that the others who cannot be absorbed immediately will receive retraining to fit them for some other employment.
I am grateful to the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, and I hope that my speech has helped to clear the air.

Mr. McMaster: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has made a long speech. I hope that he will not seek to intervene again. Some hon. Members have been waiting 11 hours already to take part in this debate.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to intervene?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman referred to the improvement in the unemployment figures, and we welcome this. This has been a fairly steady process, which has not come about overnight, but as a result of a lot of preparation. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to try to attribute to his side of the House the fact that the unemployment figures have improved. I do not think that either side of the House

ought to claim that it has by itself improved the unemployment figures. This is largely a matter to the credit of the Northern Ireland Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Member was intervening. He must not make a second speech.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am just finishing, Mr. Speaker. The Northern Ireland Government manage to offer the highest inducement to industry of any Government in Europe.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS, ISLE OF WIGHT

3.27 a.m.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for coming along at almost half-past three in the morning to hear what I have to say. I am grateful to him, and I hope that when I have finished speaking I shall be as grateful for the decisions which his right hon. Friend might make after he has told her what I have said.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the history of the Isle of Wight railways. Dr. Beeching, in his now famous Report, recommended the complete closure of the whole network, a network which carries 3 million passengers a year, 2½ million on our south-east seaboard from Ryde to Ventnor, and ½ million from Ryde through Newport to Cowes.
Realising that implementation of that suggestion would have crippled the island's economy, all the island's authorities and myself combined to fight this suggestion tooth and nail. Of all the battles which have been fought to retain railway lines in the United Kingdom, I think that probably the fight in the Isle of Wight was the longest and most vigorous. The result has been a major victory for the island, because the right hon. Lady's predecessor recognised that the most important section of our line, from Ryde to Shanklin, which carries the majority of our tourist traffic, should be retained.
It is interesting to note, though, that it is to be modernised, and in passing it is interesting to see what the Government mean when they refer to modernisation, because our 1876 locomotives are to be replaced by ex-London passenger tube trains which are 40 years old. If


that is the Government's idea of modernisation, it is small wonder that production in this country is stagnating.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): It is also interesting to note that under the Conservative 1962 Transport Act and the terms of reference given to Dr. Beeching all the Isle of Wight railways were to be closed down, and not modernised at all.

Mr. Woodnutt: I do not see the point of that intervention. Dr. Beeching made recommendations which were within his terms of reference.

Mr. Swingler: Given by the Conservative Government.

Mr. Woodnutt: He was given terms of reference by the Conservative Government, and he carried them out. I have great respect for Dr. Beeching. I am sorry that he has left British Railways. He carried out his terms of reference and made certain recommendations, and it was then up to the Government of the day to say whether these should be implemented.
My point is that the Conservative Government never said that these suggestions should be implemented in the Isle of Wight. It was the Labour Government who made that decision. [Laughter.] I do not know why the Minister is laughing. This is a question of fact. At the time of the last General Election no decision had been made by the Government about the Isle of Wight railways. The decision has been made by this Government and I have said that the Government have decided that the Ryde-Shanklin line should remain—for which I thank them, because this was our major problem.
The Government have said that the line from Shanklin to Ventnor is to be closed, and that the whole of the Ryde-Newport-Cowes section is to be closed. I was going on to talk about modernisation when the hon. Member butted in. I was pointing out that modernisation, in the eyes of hon. Members opposite, seemed to be to replace 1876 stock with stock built in 1927.
I have three comments to make on these decisions. First, we are thankful that the island is to retain the Ryde-Shanklin

line, because this is the most important one. Secondly, although we do not agree that the Ryde-Newport-Cowes line could not be made economically viable we accept that it is possible to provide a road alternative—difficult as it may be—and we are, therefore, accepting this decision and shall make the most of it.
Thirdly, we deplore the closure of the section from Shanklin to Ventnor, on three grounds. The first of these is a national ground, because it will prove to be a waste of public money; the second is a local ground, because it will cause hardship in Ventnor and, as a result, throughout the whole of the island; and the third is that Her Majesty's Government will not be fulfilling the provisions of the Transport Act, in permitting this section of line to close on 18th April next.
I want to deal with the national grounds first. The Isle of Wight County Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Southern Region of British Railways and myself have had a series of meetings over the last few months. Southern Region has been extremely co-operative in producing the figures that we required and in helping us to reach a correct assessment of the situation. We have arrived at figures on which we are all agreed. To modernise the length of line from Ryde to Shanklin will cost £456,000. To modernise the extra stretch from Shanklin to Ventnor will cost £80,000. That will be the cost of electrification to run from Shanklin to Ventnor.
The Ministry of Transport's divisional road engineer has agreed with the county council's highways surveyor in the Isle of Wight that road improvements and alterations to the terminal points which are necessary at Shanklin Station and Ventnor in order to run the extra bus service will cost £100,000. This is simply as a result of the railway closure. It will be no good the Parliamentary Secretary saying to me, as his colleague has said, that the extra benefit accrues to road users. This is not so in this case, because this £100,000 is specifically agreed by his divisional road engineer to be attributable to the railway closure only, and 70 per cent. of it is to form a new access to Shanklin Station, which has nothing to do with road use.
Therefore, it will cost an extra £20,000 of public money, which is 25 per cent. more than the cost of modernisation, to provide the alternative bus service. It strikes me as being absolutely ridiculous—considering the national interest—that one should abandon a small section of railway line and put on another form of service so that it costs the public purse £20,000 more than leaving things just as they are. When I think of this, I wonder to what extent it is being done throughout the rest of the country.
The Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt tell me, "You are just comparing the two sets of capital figures and not comparing the recurring loss which will occur if we run the railway on." I have looked into this as well. On figures which we in the Isle of Wight have agreed with the railways, running a modernised line from Ryde to Shanklin will show a profit. The figures also show that modernising the line that little extra distance to Ventnor will incur a small loss but will still leave a net profit on a modernised line right the way to Ventnor.
In any event, the calculations which the railways' representatives have produced to us assume that, if the line is cut off at Ventnor, they will retain 90 per cent. of the traffic which formerly went all the way. We believe that, if people have to get into a bus and go through the circuitous roads to Ventnor, they will not retain but will lose that 90 per cent. In our opinion, therefore, it is necessary to run the line all the way to Ventnor in order to make it show a profit.
It is worth bearing in mind that 25 per cent. of the income of that line from Ryde to Ventnor is derived from passengers who are either travelling to or coming from the town of Ventnor itself. Another thing to remember if the Minister makes this point to me—as I have no doubt he will—is that, if that section of line is closed, it will be necessary to make a subvention to the bus company.
Everyone I have asked remains remarkably mute about this and it is impossible to get any sort of figure, but the figure which I have unofficially obtained is about £10,000 per annum. If this is correct, the Government will be crazy

to permit British Railways to close that section of the line and pay a subvention to the bus company of £10,000, which is far greater than the wildest estimate of the loss which British Railways reckon they will incur on the Shanklin to Ventnor stretch.
My second reason is local grounds. In the height of the season in the Isle of Wight on peak Saturdays no fewer than 11,000 people in the one day go into and out of the town of Shanklin and through the little railway station. I have been there Saturday after Saturday to see, and 10 years ago I lived in the town, and I assure the hon. Member that traffic conditions are chaotic. If the line is stopped at Shanklin and a mass of buses are brought in to take people to Ventnor, then 6,000 extra people will be pushed through that station at Shanklin. This will result in utter chaos. To transport 6,000 people by bus to and from Shanklin and Ventnor will require 150 bus journeys each day. Over a 10-hour period, that is 15 buses an hour, for one every four minutes.
This would be a great problem in the town of Shanklin. The streets are narrow and winding, and suddenly to have an extra bus every four minutes, in addition to the traffic already going through the town, would cause deplorable traffic conditions. People would not travel by that route again. This is the very real worry of the people of Ventnor, which lives on tourist traffic—that people will not go there again. For this reason alone the decision to close this length of line is callous and inconsiderate.
Thirdly, the Government will not be fulfilling the provisions of the Transport Act. It is my understanding that railway lines may not be closed unless an adequate alternative has been provided. It is planned that this line shall close on 18th April, and the Minister's divisional road engineer for the Isle of Wight has agreed that £100,000 must be spent on an alternative access to Shanklin station, on widening the roads and carrying out improvements in the town of Ventnor and on providing bus shelters—which do not exist at present—for the extra 6,000 people who will travel daily. This cannot be done by 18th April, and if it cannot be done, then it is untrue to say that an adequate alternative service will be provided. When I saw the right hon. Lady about four weeks ago I asked her to


impose one condition—that all the work which it has been agreed between the county highways surveyor and her divisional road engineer should be done, in fact must be done before the railway closes.
I have a few further short points to make. First, when the right hon. Lady's predecessor made the decision to close these lines he based his decision on inaccurate figures supplied by Southern Region. I wrote to the Minister fully about this on 29th November and I submitted to her figures which we in the Isle of Wight had subsequently agreed with the Southern Region. They had overestimated the cost of modernisation and they had over-estimated the expected receipts on the Ryde to Shanklin line, assuming that they closed Shanklin-Ventnor. There is a big difference between the figures. I believe that the decision based on the inaccurate figures was wrong and that the Minister should look at it again in the light of the new figures.
Secondly, when I saw the Minister she promised me that when she received the inspector's report after the appeal by Ventnor U.D.C. had been heard, she would take account of the representations which I had made. Obviously, she cannot do this unless the line is kept open, and all I ask is that until the inspector's report has been received and she has considered it with the representations that I have made, the line should remain open, whatever British Railways say about closing it on 18th April.
It is ridiculous, anyway, to close a railway line in a summer resort on 18th April, when the place is approaching the profitability period, just when it is working up to its peak. It is far better that the line should remain open during the summer months when the maximum throughput of traffic is available, and that if it is closed it should be closed in October.
I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman will tell me that under the law the Minister cannot change her decision. I know this, but what the Minister can do is to impose the condition that I have suggested which will have the effect of at least postponing the closure of this railway until after the summer season, during which time we shall all have time to think again.
The Labour candidate at the last election, on the Saturday before polling day, put advertisements in all the newspapers stating, "Vote Labour and save the island railway from Tory massacre." In his election address he also implied that if we had a Labour Government the island railway would not close. He said, "The lifeline should not be cut." The Government now propose to cut Ventnor's lifeline. This is another broken election pledge, and I suggest that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should do something about it.

3.47 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): I hope that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) will forgive me if, at this late hour, I do not take up a great deal of time. I express that hope with the more confidence as he had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport as recently as 3rd February, when many of these issues were canvassed. I think that he had a very full hearing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has spoken before in this debate. If so, he can speak again only with the leave of the House.

Mr. Morris: If I may have the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should be grateful if I could have the opportunity of replying to the hon. Gentleman. If I may say so, this is the third time that I have spoken in the debate on the Bill.
Since the hon. Gentleman had a very full hearing with the Minister, I think there are only one or two points that were outstanding following that meeting. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Beeching Report and to the proposals therein, and to the 1962 Act. He will recall that his colleagues, then sitting on this side of the House, trooped into the Lobby in support of the 1962 Act and of the Beeching proposals. I may be able to exonerate the hon. Gentleman on that score, but certainly all his colleagues went into the Lobby in support of the Act and of the Beeching proposals.
I think that my right hon. Friend who preceded the present Minister made a very wise decision in keeping the lifeline of the Isle of Wight open. Certainly, it was far more than was contemplated by the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples),


when he came to the House in support of the Beeching proposals in the debates that we had in the 1960s. I do not propose to enter into a lengthy discussion of these matters. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that a decision has been taken and that once a decision has been taken the Minister has no further power in regard to that decision.

Mr. Woodnutt: I accept that the Minister has no power to alter a decision already taken under the 1962 Act, but his right hon. Friend could impose conditions.

Mr. Morris: I entirely agree. When he made his decision my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) imposed conditions. Those conditions were set out in the letter containing her decision. That was the limit of his powers under the 1962 Act. In the next Parliament, when we annul the evil effects of the 1962 Act, I trust that we shall have the hon. Gentleman's support.
All the Minister can do is to vary the conditions of consent to secure, for example, improvements in the extra alternative services. Since the traffic commissioners have licensed the bus services, they must be presumed to have been satisfied with the condition of the roads. Because of the possibility of appeal to my right hon. Friend, I cannot go further on this aspect. If the hon. Gentleman produces concrete evidence to show that essential needs will not be met by the services provided for in the conditions, the Minister will be most anxious to vary the terms of the consent and provide extra bus or any other services that might be required.

Mr. Woodnutt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that remark. I was present at the hearing when the traffic commissioners were there. We asked for certain conditions to be imposed. The bus company and the railways said that they would meet those conditions, but the traffic commissioners decided not to make that a condition of the licence, despite the bus company and railways saying that they would meet our request. Would the hon. Gentlemen not agree that, in these circumstances, this should now be made a condition? He said that if I could supply concrete evidence his right hon. Friend would be prepared to make con-

ditions. Would he consider these points, if I put them to his right hon. Friend tomorrow or the day after, and impose further conditions?

Mr. Morris: I do not wish to raise false hopes. There are two different matters here. First, regarding the provision of alternative services, conditions are imposed by the Minister in granting consent to the closure of the railway. Secondly, if concrete evidence is available, as I have explained, the Minister can vary the terms of her conditions. The traffic commissioners represent a different body, independent in status. They can impose whatever conditions they think fit, or no conditions at all, on a licence to operate a bus. The Minister has a different role. If there is an appeal my right hon. Friend sits in an appellate capacity, and it would be wrong for me to comment on her jurisdiction in that matter.
To deal briefly with the main point raised by the hon. Gentleman, first, the road improvements on the Shanklin-Ventnor route were not part of the conditions of consent to the closure. Secondly, improvements were included anyway in the county council's long-term plans for roadworks on the island. Thirdly, the decision to invite the council to put in proposals now was equivalent to an acceleration in time of works, which would have been carried out sometime anyway. Accordingly, there is no question of comparing alternative forms of investment. Fourthly, the cost of the roadworks is not likely to exceed the notional cost of modernising the railway.
Both would be about £100,000. The details of the roadworks are being discussed between the county council and the D.R.E. I have just received information showing that the roadworks could be as low as £70,000 or over £100,000, depending on what was included, but £100,000 can be taken as a working figure. The hon. Member appears to be under the misapprehension that most of the money would be needed for improving the station approach at Shanklin as a necessary consequence of efficient working of the rail-bus interchange there. This is not so. All the work is part of the improvement of the through route. The amount of money estimated for the part of the route


nearest to the station is very small—I am given to understand that it is about £10,000.
The hon. Gentleman may attribute £60,000 to the work near the station, but all this is for a realigning of the route out of Shanklin. This is perhaps the misapprehension from which, during the course of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman appeared to be suffering.

Orders of the Day — TRAFFIC, DORRINGTON

3.55 a.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: It is a strange commentary on the way in which we conduct our affairs that to raise a question which, while it affects only a limited number of my constituents affects them very seriously, I have to raise it after 13½ hours of debate in the House at four o'clock in the morning, but I make no apology for doing so.
The matter that I want to discuss, and about which I have been in correspondence with the Minister, is the events surrounding the traffic problem of a village called Dorrington, about 6½ miles outside Shrewsbury and in the centre of my constituency. It has a population of about 300, and it is on the main Shrewsbury—Hereford route. The village is at present in the process of dying. It has been condemned to death by the traffic on the roads today. It is traffic, and nothing else, that is doing this.
I do not know whether any hon. Member remembers the village of Markyate, which used to be on the main A5. The situation at Dorrington is not dissimilar. Markyate was certainly larger, but the traffic conditions at Dorrington are very similar to what took place in Markyate before, in the first place, the bypass and, in the second place, the Ml took all the traffic right away.
I have known the village of Dorrington for the last 20 years. For a short time, until the end of 1964, I lived there and got to know it and its problems very intimately. It was the traffic, amongst other reasons, that caused me to leave the village. I have two children, and this road which drives straight through the centre of the village, has few or no pavements. It is almost impossible for children to cross from one side of the road to the other which, in

a small country village, is a deplorable state.
The effect of the traffic crashing down the centre of the road has been to divide the village into two halves on either side, and the two halves are practically inaccessible to each other with the rate of traffic there is. It is a question of waiting and waiting, when trying to cross to the other side of the village, especially with children.
That is what happens during the day time, but at night it is even worse. One then gets lorries crashing through the centre of the village going, I think, from somewhere in the North Midlands to somewhere in South Wales—empty the one way, loaded the other—at all hours of the night. It causes acute discomfort to the villagers and great distress to everyone concerned.
In those circumstances, what is the answer of the Ministry? At the moment, the answer is to widen the road. In correspondence I have had with him, the Parliamentary Secretary has stated that this is what the Ministry is trying to do. This makes the situation in many ways worse, not better. Widening the road tends to encourage speeding through the village. There has been a fatal accident near the village recently. It is an awful thought to contemplate that sooner or later there will be a fatal accident in the village. I should hate to think that we have to wait for such an accident before something serious is done about this problem.
I realise that there is a financial problem, but, while the financial situation is what it is, I cannot see the problem getting nearer to a solution. It does not appear to be doing so, but, on the contrary, to be getting further away. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me that it is his Ministry's intention not to continue so much with the widening of the road and knocking down of houses and adding further to the devastation of the village, but at the earliest possible moment to bypass the village so that it can go back to the life it used to have as a country village without holding up traffic because traffic is allowed to bypass the village.
The second thing I ask the hon. Gentleman to state is something which I realise is outside his jurisdiction but I


hope that he will use his influence to this end. It is that in the meantime the speed limit will be enforced. I assure him that it is seldom observed. If these two things are not done I am certain that this village, which has grown up in a country area, will continue to ultimate death. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give some encouragement and hope that he will not allow this to happen.

4.3 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): By leave of the House I speak again. I do not know how many more times I shall have to say that.
I can be brief in my reply to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt). The fact is that 80 per cent. of the people of the country live on 10 per cent. of the land area and 20 per cent. of the major roads carry more than 50 per cent. of the traffic in terms of vehicle mileage. Dorrington happens to be a village which stands athwart an important road. Ten years ago—I make no partisan point at this time of the morning, we were spending £8 million out of national funds in road expenditure. That was in 1955. We are spending in this current year £140 million plus. We are planning to expend in 1969–70 £240 million annually in highway expenditure.
Such is the rate of progress, but people say it is still not enough. It is not enough to provide a bypass for the village of Dorrington. That is the situation we have to face. Of course it is highly desirable to provide a bypass for the village. Very early on, when I started to occupy this position, I met Professor Buchanan and I asked him what he thought the most important priority for the Ministry of Transport. He replied, "The provision of bypasses for the through traffic of towns and villages".
Bypasses are extraordinarily expensive and in the case to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention it would be quite an expensive scheme. If the scheme is highly desirable, it will have to be programmed at some future date, but it will have to await its turn in the long list of schemes which we have to consider year by year in the roll forward of the roads programme for the towns and cities and villages which require bypass schemes.
Therefore, because of the heavy traffic on this road, we have put forward a minor improvement scheme. The road through the village is undoubtedly narrow and for the most part poor. It is less than 20 ft. and in some parts less than 15 ft. wide and the footpaths are narrow. We have decided that a minor improvement scheme involving much less expenditure than any kind of bypass scheme is necessary in order to provide a 24 ft. carriageway and 6 ft. footpaths.
I recognise that in a way this exacerbates the problem. It always happens whenever there is an improvement scheme of this kind which assists traffic flow that it also carries with it potential additional danger for those concerned. In the Ministry of Transport we have the exceedingly difficult problem of weighing up and assessing these different priorities. In this case we consider that, because of the amount of traffic which must necessarily use this road, the minor improvement scheme should be carried out with the improvement of the footpaths for the additional safety of pedestrians and with wider carriageways for the traffic, pending the time when it is possible to provide a proper bypass scheme for the village.
I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said about observance of the speed limit. We have made our observations and we are in consultation with the Home Office and we will take every measure possible, in conjunction with those who are concerned locally, to see that the speed limit is observed.
There has been a proposal for the use of double white line markings in the village. There are certain difficulties about this. This proposal comes to us from many quarters in situations of this kind and we would certainly like to adopt it, but very often we foresee that it would create more problems than it would resolve. However, we are prepared to consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion for a meeting on the spot between our expert advisers and those of the local authority to examine the situation and to see what can be done by the better employment of traffic signs and road markings to alleviate the situation. If that improves the situation on the initiative of the local authority, we will certainly arrange it.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be in touch with the Home


Office about the need for strong enforcement of the speed limit in the village and that we are determined to carry out this improvement for pedestrians and better traffic How and that, at the same time, we have well in mind the desirability of a bypass scheme for the village of Dorrington.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE

4.10 a.m.

Commander Anthony Courtney: As one of that large number of hon. Members who did not have the privilege of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the recent debate, I feel that even at this late hour I should not apologise to you and the House for raising the matter of defence. I should like to draw attention to what I consider to be a retrograde and disastrous White Paper on Defence recently published by Her Majesty's Government.
I am strengthened in this resolve by the fact that earlier today in another place, by an overwhelming majority, their Lordships have thrown out the Government's White Paper on Defence and thereby shown the wisdom of their deliberations. It is little wonder that the party opposite has it in its manifesto to emasculate another place when such wisdom is shown as in the circumstances of today.
I wish to make a non-party speech and I should like to compare this disastrous White Paper with the equally disastrous one of 1957. I believe that both follow from respective will-o'-the-wisps. In 1957, the will-o'-the-wisp, was the doctrine of massive retaliation before which our ancient strategy was to bow its head. In 1966, the mirage—if I dare use that word—is cheap shore-based air-power, a substitute for something which served us so well for many centuries. I believe that the Government have been guilty of falling—to use an American expression—for a gigantic public relations operation in that they have accepted a fallacious doctrine which is that of the self-sufficiency in British strategic circles of air power divorced from its necessary logistic connotation and connection with land and water. That is the fundamental fallacy behind the Government's reasoning as expressed in the White Paper.
It seems to me extraordinary that an island nation such as ours should bind

itself, it seems for a further 10 years, to a strategy which in the first place maintains a standing army of 55,000 men on the continent of Europe in peace time—something unknown in our whole history—while, at the same time, it is implicit in the 1966 White Paper on defence that we are surrendering finally our ability to protect our shipping anywhere outside what amounts to British territorial waters. I hope to satisfy hon. Members opposite on this.
The logical outcome of Government policy as expressed in the White Paper surely is that in the early 1970s, if not before, our large army, which presumably will still remain in Europe, will have become virtual mercenary troops in what is rapidly becoming a German-American alliance, whilst east of Suez our small naval and air forces will become pensioners and auxiliaries of the United States forces themselves. By confining defence beneath a £2,000 million ceiling the Government have made a very serious error in forcing the acceptance of weapons systems as alternatives to one another when they should be complementary to one another. I hope to show how seriously this has affected our ability to maintain our defence strategy. Furthermore, this selection of alternatives exacerbates inter-Service rivalries, which the integration of the Ministry of Defence under successive Governments has done its best to remove.
We are told that we shall have no aircraft carrier after 1975. The Government do not seem to realise that this, in effect, removes the main armament of the fleet. It is as though, in earlier days, we had removed the gun power of the fleet, as though, fifty years ago, we had removed the battleships from the Grand Fleet itself.

Mr. Derek Page: I am puzzled to relate the hon. and gallant Gentleman's opinion with that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) who, in the debate on 26th February, 1958, said:
We have no aircraft carriers large enough to operate the long-range bombers which would be needed for an effective strike operation. We really could not contemplate building more and bigger carriers…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1958; Vol. 583, cc. 388–9.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a long quotation in what is supposed to be a brief intervention.

Commander Courtney: If the hon. Gentleman looks into that quotation a little more closely, he will realise that it related to the totally fallacious strategic concept of applying aircraft carriers to nuclear strikes, to bomber strikes, for which they were never intended in the British case and, I trust, never will be. There is no place in my thinking for the continuing use of British aircraft carriers as a nuclear strike force, despite the thinking of the Americans on a similar subject. British ideas on the subject are completely different.
I have spoken of the removal of the main armament of the Fleet. By taking away the fixed-wing aircraft with its long range and great striking power, mounted as a weapon operating from a ship, an aircraft carrier, we deprive shipping, task forces, convoys, whatever they may be, of any protection from existing potentially hostile surface forces belonging to the Soviet Union, to the Soviet-sponsored Indonesian naval forces and the Soviet-sponsored naval forces of the United Arab Republic. There are about 30 Sverdlov class cruisers against which we can oppose nothing on the surface at this moment except the fixed-wing aircraft operating from carriers. There are 20 to 30 guided missile ships against which, equally, we can oppose nothing except the fixed-wing aircraft. And, apart from that, though not quite in the same context, there are over 400 ocean-going submarines.
In Part I of the White Paper, there are three major fallacies to which I wish to draw attention. In paragraphs 2 and 3 it is said that there is only one type of operation for which carriers and carrier-borne aircraft would be indispensable. This was weakened in the debate the day before yesterday by an intervention by myself and a reply by the Secretary of State for Defence in which he admitted that that was not the only function of the aircraft carrier. He admitted the truth of the matter, which is that the carrier is also for the protection of shipping wherever it may be.
But that admission in debate is not matched by any reference in the White

Paper to aircraft carriers for the protection of shipping or anything else, and this, from the Government of an island nation, is sufficient indication of the poorness of strategic thinking which underlies the whole document. There is no mention whatsoever of the protection of shipping.
It is surely clear, furthermore, that if we are to protect our shipping east of Suez, outside British territorial waters, or outside short-range aircraft protection from bases such as Singapore, we shall be entirely reliant on United States naval co-operation. Here we come to realms of policy which the House should consider very seriously. Obviously, there will be many occasions on which we and the Americans will see eye to eye and such co-operation will be forthcoming, but there will be others on which we shall wish to pursue policies involving the protection of shipping which are not agreeable to the United States, and in these circumstances, without a carrier we shall not be able to pursue those policies.
Alternatively, it may be that the United States wishes to pursue a line of policy, say, in support of Formosa or against China of which we do not approve, and then we shall be bound hand and foot with such naval forces as we possess, because we have no carriers, as auxiliaries of the United States in a line of policy with which we do not agree.
The second fallacy lies in another sentence in Part II, that Britain should maintain a major capability outside Europe. Without the ability to protect shipping, how are we able to support, or nourish, in the old Churchillian expression, any major military force anywhere in the world outside air cover range from the United Kingdom? Again, this can only be done if we are acting as auxiliaries of the Americans and utilising American carriers for the air cover of the shipping needed to support such major military capability.
The third fallacy is as follows. We intend, in the words of the White Paper, not to provide another country with military assistance unless that country is prepared to provide us with the facilities we need to make such assistance effective in time. That sounds very right, proper, easy and face-saving in the House of


Commons, but can we really imagine a determined aggressor giving us the time to deploy our forces and get them in unopposed? Can one imagine the host country being in a position to make it possible for us to send unopposed help?
We say that we are going to rely on quick reinforcement by air. Surely this is cloud cuckoo land. Let us go back a couple of years to the events in Kuwait. Do we really think that if H.M.S. "Bulwark," with her carrier-borne aircraft, had not been in the vicinity the Iraqis would have given us time to send transports full of troops and long range aircraft to fly into the Kuwait airfields in plenty of time to deploy force against a possible Iraqi attack? It is senseless for any potential aggressor ever to allow such a situation to occur. Therefore, I submit that that sentence in the White Paper is, again, a complete fallacy.
Can we imagine the new C5s, which the Royal Air Force will have to have if it is to transport large quantities of stores and troops over long distances, flying into terminal airfields and the butchery which will ensure if, as one expects, the potential aggressor has his fighter aircraft in the vicinity ready to mow them down as they come in? Again, it is cloud cuckoo land to write such things into what purports to be a serious White Paper defining the strategy of this country for years to come.
What logic is there in these circumstances in continuing to build commando ships, assault ships and amphibious craft of any kind if we are depriving ourselves of the means of deploying an amphibious force throughout the world? Why go on building the ships? We know that that is not the £100 million saving promised by the Government, a fact which was not elicited until last night's debate, because we know that that depends upon a hypothetical situation in the future when confrontation in Indonesia comes to an end. Why did not the Government take their courage in both hands and cancel the programme of amphibious assault ship building, observing that they were no longer providing after the early 1970s the power of giving them air cover?
For the same reason, one can ask—and I know that this will be of particular interest to an hon. Member opposite—

what is the further use of that magnificent corps, the Royal Corps of Royal Marines, whose whole object historically—and, as we had hoped, in the future—has been the deployment of military power from naval vessels at isolated points throughout the world. If that cannot be done in face of opposition anywhere because we have deprived them of air cover, surely there seems little reason for the continuance of the Royal Marines as a corps, including the Royal Marine Commandos.
What effect will all this have on recruiting and training and on the morale of the Royal Marines and the Fleet Air Arm? We are told that we are keeping them on and that there will be a cut-off somewhere about 1975. Do the Government really think that they can keep that magnificent corps and that magnificent Fleet Air Arm fully effective up to that date? I very much doubt it.
In paragraph 25 of Part II of the White Paper on Defence we have a real gem:
Protection for island territories in the Atlantic, Indian or Pacific Oceans can readily be provided from our major areas of deployment.
I have never read such fatuity as that in anything which purports to be a serious Government paper. What bases are the Government talking about? The United Kingdom, of course. Singapore? For the foreseeable future, perhaps, although doubts are expressed in the £100 million of saving which the Government talk about. Aden? We have had enough said about Aden last night and the night before. Australia? Of course. Simons-town? I should like a reply from the Minister as to Simonstown's place in the thinking of Her Majesty's Government in all this. It has been, and, we hope, will again prove to be, a possible major area of deployment for our forces.
What of the advanced island bases which we are to protect? Gan? Aldabra? Ascension? Diego Garcia? Cocos? Surely, these island bases are equivalent to immobile task forces. They are just like a task force or convoy except that they cannot move. If we are to protect them at all, we must mount a Pearl Harbour scale of defences, which is quite outside the possibilities of our national pocket, as the Government and all of us in the House know.
How, then, can we imagine that we will give protection for these island territories in face of the overwhelming Soviet and Soviet-Indonesian, and perhaps even Soviet-U.A.R., sea power—surface forces which can be mounted at this moment because they exist? I say with some sadness that the Minister of Defence for the Navy does not have the courage of his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) in resigning over a major question of principle like this, having the main armament of the Fleet removed, together with our ability to combat those surface forces.
The Government speak in the White Paper of the development—10 years ahead, as we know—of a surface-to-surface guided missile to replace the fixed-wing aircraft. The reason why we have not hitherto developed this surface-to-surface guided missile is simply that we have relied upon the fixed-wing aircraft. Now, we are depriving ourselves of the fixed-wing aircraft and finding ourselves without the ability to develop the missile. The thing is strategic imbecility and, to an island nation such as ours, absolute madness.
How are we to supply the food, the fuel and stores to these far-flung island bases? How are the petrol and the diesel fuel and the kerosene for the aircraft to be taken to those islands? They have to go by sea. How are these sea roads to be protected in the new circumstances? Have the Government thought that out? It is quite clear to me that they have not. It seems to me that in the purchase of what amounts to 20 to 25 at any one time of F111 As—I know that the total is 50—the Government have fallen victim to one of the most gigantic confidence tricks in history.
For the first time in our national history we have given up our ability to defend our merchant shipping outside a short distance flying range from this country or our major bases abroad, a departure from historical strategic precedent. I cannot believe it will be persisted in even by this Government, should, unhappily, they be returned to power at the end of the month. Surely, as we on this side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—have declared, when we form the next Government we shall put that matter right. It is utter madness

that a country which imports 50 per cent. of its food and 90 per cent. of its industrial raw materials by sea should give up its birthright in this way, and I hope, rather against hope, that even hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will come to their senses at last and see that they have written a perfectly appalling White Paper.
My final point—I hope I shall be in order in mentioning it—is about defence security, because today I have received a Written Answer to a Written Question, and it has a distinct bearing on this matter. I have in this House many times drawn attention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to the persistent weaknesses in our national security, emphasised perhaps most recently by the Vassall case, the Portland spy trial, and by the Bossard affair, reinforced by the evidence we have received through the Penkovsky papers, of the abuse of diplomatic privilege by certain foreign embassies in London for espionage and successful espionage purposes.
Today, in this Written Answer it appears that by the Anglo-Soviet consular agreement, signed in Moscow last December the numbers of these consular representatives are to be added to the numbers of diplomats who have full diplomatic privileges, and at places outside London, and, what is more, contrary to the provisions of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, to which we and other countries concerned subscribed, every member of the new consular establishments of the Soviet Union, wherever they may be in this country, is going to have full and complete diplomatic immunity, far greater than that which we give to our closest friends and allies.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but has he given someone notice that he intended to make, as it were, two speeches by raising this second point?

Commander Courtney: With apologies to you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, I have given no such notice with regard to the security aspect. Perhaps I may be at fault for not having done so, but having only just received this Written Answer to my Question I would crave the indulgence of yourself and the House. But I will leave the matter there.

Mr. Speaker: I have no power to stop the hon. and gallant Member, but the traditional courtesy of the House is that, usually, if an hon. Member wishes to raise a question he should endeavour to have someone to answer it.

Commander Courtney: I will leave the matter there, simply craving the indulgence of the House because of the short notice I myself have been given by receipt of this Answer only today. That is all I wish to say.
I believe, to return to my first point, that this White Paper is retrograde and disastrous, as bad as that of 1957, though for different reasons.

4.35 a.m.

The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I can see only one good reason why the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) made the speech to which we have just listened. It is that, having spent a considerable amount of time preparing it and having failed to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, during the defence debate, he was determined to fire it off, even at this hour of the morning. I wish that, instead of yielding to the nervous tension that we all feel when trying to catch your eye, he had listened to some of the arguments put forward from this Dispatch Box during that debate. I am not going through them all again. The hon. and gallant Gentleman can read them in HANSARD, if he has not done so already.
One thing which I am going to do which is relevant to his speech is to bore the House with a personal reminiscence—and, if I cannot bore the House at this time of night, I do not know when I can.
My sea time during the war lasted five months and two weeks, and, because of that, I am not entitled to the 1939–45 Medal. I resent that, because my experience was more intense than that of some people who were swinging round a buoy in a battle wagon up in Scapa.
I say that it was intense. In fact, it was on a convoy to Russia. It was not the disastrous one in July, 1942, but the one afterwards. It was the largest convoy sent to Russia during the war. It experienced the heaviest torpedo attack of the

whole war and one of the heaviest bombing attacks sustained over four or five days. But it was successful, and it was successful because we had a Woolworth carrier.
I mention that personal experience only to show that I know perfectly well the need for air cover. That need existed during the war, and it exists today. It is going to exist into the indefinite future, as far as I can see. It is going to be met, now and for the next 10 years, by exactly the same traditional methods that it has been met in the last 40 years, and that is by the Fleet Air Arm. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been talking as though the Fleet Air Arm was finished today or tomorrow, but it is not. It is the full intention of the Government and, what in my view is more important, the Navy that it should be continued until the other alternative sources of air cover are produced.
What are those alternative sources of air cover? One idea is the shore-based aircraft of the R.A.F. But that is only one of the options, and that is really the crux of the whole argument that is going on now. The argument is not about Britain's defences today. It is not only about Britain's defences in 10 years' time. It is Britain's defences in 10, 15 or 20 years' time.
Our job now is to forecast as best we can what the job of our defences will be that time ahead. When we have made the best forecast of what the job is, then it is our business to judge what weapons we need to do that job. That is an altogether different thing from asking how we are to preserve the Air Force or build up the Navy; how we are to secure the future of carriers or make certain that we get the TSR2.
Instead of that, we say that these are our weapons—the ones that we have at present, and the ones that we are going to have in the foreseeable future. Having said that, we then must judge which arm of our defence force, or what combination of our defence force arms, is best suited to carry these weapons for the jobs that we foresee. They could be aircraft, and I do not exclude vertical take-off aircraft, as some have done, whether shore-based or sea-borne. They may be missiles, carried in aircraft, or


stationed on land, or in surface ships, or in submarines. Whatever decision we take, we know that we will still need the Marines. I thought that it was most damaging to suggest that we do not need the Marines any more, that wonderful all-purpose corps which will do any sort of job at any sort of time, and will go on doing it. We shall still need sailors, marines, soldiers, and airmen. Whatever decisions are taken on the job that we have to do, and on the weapons that we are going to have to do that job, I cannot for the life of me see how anybody could possibly say that there will not be a serious and indeed dominating rôle for the Royal Navy.
We have new classes of ships coming on. We have new types of propulsion. We have the concept of the hovership. We have nuclear propelled submarines, far and away the best platform for any sort of missile, conventional or otherwise that has yet been devised.

Commander Courtney: We have not got the weapons.

Mr. Mallalieu: We have 10 years in which to get them, and we are going to do it, and if anybody who has seen the possibilities for the use of the Royal Navy in the defence of this country still says that there is not a future for the Navy, there are only two words which I can offer him, and neither of those is Parliamentary.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SPORTING EVENTS (BETTING)

4.37 a.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require persons receiving and negotiating bets on certain sporting events to obtain the authority of the promoters thereof; and for purposes connected therewith.
I appreciate that this is not a propitious moment in the life of this Parliament to bring in this Bill, but, having given notice some weeks ago of my intention to do so, before I realised that Parliament was going to be dissolved on 10th March, I still feel that I should bring in this Measure. It requires a little pub-

licity, it is a well-drafted Bill, and it is well supported.
Since the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, was introduced there has been a change in the forms of betting, and I think that it is high time we looked at the whole situation. At the moment it is possible for a bookmaker to have a book on any kind of sport without paying any contribution to it. All kinds of sports are affected, and I can state categorically that this Measure has the support of the M.C.C., of the Rugby Union, of the Rugby League, of the Lawn Tennis Association, and of other sports. Most of these sports have very heavy overheads, and they are having a struggle to keep going. We therefore feel that if bookmakers are making money out of these sports, they should make some contribution to them.
The Bill does not mention horse racing. There is already a levy scheme in operation for this sport, introduced as a result of the 1963 Act. The Football Association to some extent has its own agreements about the money it receives. It is the other sports to which I have referred which I am anxious to cover, and I think that the Bill should have the full support of the House.
Bets are now made on the question whether one political party or another will be successful. Betting seems to be entering the way of life of most people. The situation is becoming very loose. I am broad-minded on this issue and am not against people being allowed to bet, but if bookmakers want to run books, or pools promoters want to run pools, they should make a contribution towards the sports on which they are taking bets.
There are many aspects of the Bill which I should like to discuss, but the hour is late and we have had a long sitting. I therefore merely express the hope that I shall be given leave to bring in the Bill, which has the backing of the sports that I have mentioned. The Bill has been well prepared and it should be given the maximum publicity. Many of the sports carried on in the North—including crown green bowling—are subject to betting. The National Greyhound Association is very keen to have restrictions placed on bookmakers. I therefore hope that the House will give me leave to bring in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Albert Roberts, Mr. Brian Harrison, Mr. John Fair, Mr. J.E.B. Hill, Mr. Charles Morrison, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier, Mr. Ben Ford, and Mr. David Ensor.

Orders of the Day — SPORTING EVENTS (BETTING)

Bill to require persons receiving and negotiating bets on certain sporting events to obtain the authority of the promoters thereof; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time this day and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

Orders of the Day — DISPOSSESSED TENANT FARMERS (COMPENSATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Harriet Slater.]

4.48 a.m.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: I have sat up all night for an opportunity to raise a very important issue, and I make no apology for doing so. I wish to bring to the notice of the Government the considerable financial hardships caused to compulsorily dispossessed tenant farmers whose land is being taken over for development. I am very grateful to Mr. William Snooks, former National Farmers' Union Bucks County Chairman, and to his colleagues in that branch for drawing my attention to this very great injustice, under which tenant farmers have been suffering for so long.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would consider improving agricultural tenants' compensation. The reasons for my request are, first, that the subject is urgent. Urban development in my constituency of Buckingham and throughout the country is going on at a pace that present legislation never envisaged. Large-scale dispossession of approximately 200 farmers, more than half of whom are tenant farmers, is threatened in my constituency by virtue of the Government's plan to set up a new city to take London's overspill population of about 150,000 people. As is well known, the supply of farming land is limited because dispossessed

farmers and horticulturists—who number many thousands all over the country—cannot easily start up again and then only at a very high cost. Hence the need for much better and fairer compensation. The threat to the tenant farmers of my constituency is a nightmare, because they realise that their livelihood and their homes are at stake and that their chance of getting another farm to rent is extremely small.
They feel that the present basis of compensation is both low and diabolically unjust. Present terms of compensation are, in my opinion, mean, niggardly and inhuman. Tenant farmers should receive five years' profits or 10 years' rent, whichever is the higher, when they are compulsorily dispossessed. Farmers would much rather be left alone with their farms. If they have to go, they would rather be compensated by the Government helping to find them an equal-sized farm. If a farmer takes over a derelict farm and makes heavy investments—as in all other businesses—he could and often does lose money in the first two to five years.
By being given the option of five years' profits or 10 years' rent, a farmer could be compensated in a fair way instead of being dispossessed, possibly at a most difficult and disadvantageous time.
The present legislation governing compensation to dispossessed farmers is contained in Section 34 of the principal Act, the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, and in Section 22 of a subsidiary Act, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1963. The principles of compensation are laid down in Section 34 of the principal Act and the maximum and minimum limits are set out. The minimum limit is laid down as one year's rent and the maximum as two years' rent. The rent is the current rent which the tenant farmer pays to his landlord.
No doubt, in 1948, this basis of compensation was fair and reasonable, but time and the value of money have changed. Farming has become big business in which a substantial sum of capital investment is involved. I therefore suggest that the rigid limits laid down in the principal Act have become as out-dated as the penny-farthing in our


jet age. There are many aspects of development which affect tenant farmers in my constituency, who until recently have had little cause to fear dispossession or to concern themselves about the compensation to which they might be entitled as a result of their being dispossessed of the land on which they have gained their living.
However, with the threatened setting up of this great new city in my constituency, many of them have had to start concerning themselves with this question, and they are shocked and amazed at how unfairly they would be treated under the present Act. At the moment, the problem of unfair compensation applies most particularly to the tenant farmer, because the dispossessed owner-occupier—of a home, a business or a farm—gets the full market value. Though he may not be able to find another farm, if he is beyond the age at which he is able to find alternative employment, he has at least some capital on which to fall back.
Is it realised that more than 60,000 acres of land are being swallowed up every year by development projects? This is occurring annually, and hardship is being suffered by hundreds of farmers, their farm workers and their dependants. Is it equitable that a young farmer who is making a great contribution to this industry should be penalised on exactly the same basis of compensation as a farmer who is about ready to retire in a year or two? It is very hard on people who are farming as tenants and suddenly find that their land, which is the tool of their trade, is removed from them.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider stating emphatically that compensation should be paid on the basis of five years' loss of profit or 10 years' rent, whichever is higher. I hope that I am not out of order in complaining that the former Administration, who were in power for almost 13 years and who have been pretending to be friends of the farmers, refused to bring in the necessary legislation to put right this gross injustice. For this reason I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will honour the pledge which he gave when he said that in principle he accepts that adequate compensation

should be given to a farmer who suffered because of the take-over of his land for non-agricultural use. Under the legislation of the previous Administration it was the practice to make ex-gratia payments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The hon. Member is dealing with legislation. He may not do that on the Adjournment.

Mr. Maxwell: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I trust that my right hon. Friend will honour his pledge. I know that my right hon. Friend and this Administration are wholly in sympathy with my plea and agree that something must be done to right this injustice. I believe that the reason it has not yet been done is the need for the Ministry of Agriculture to consult the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association, but these consultations have been going on for far too long and the injustice continues.
I hope that my hon. Friend will at least be good enough to say two things this morning—that he is completely in sympathy with my plea and that he hopes that something will be done about this matter speedily; and, secondly, who is the nigger in the woodpile. Is it the N.F.U. or the C.L.A. which is preventing this necessary legislation from being put on the Statute Book? By telling the country which of these two organisations is dragging its feet, at least my hon. Friend will tell the tenant farmers, who are suffering and who have been dispossessed, on whom they should put the blame.

4.58 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) has made an eloquent speech on behalf of his farming constituents and I fully recognise that this question of compensation is bound to cause them concern. Nor is it only a local problem. My right hon. Friend recognises that it is a national problem, since development proposals will inevitably be made elsewhere which will mean loss of land for tenant farmers. My hon. Friend mentioned 60,000 acres, which is a very high figure.
He was right not to apologise for raising the subject at this early hour as it is a very important subject when we consider the number of acres which he mentioned as likely to be taken over, much of which will be occupied by tenant farmers. The reason why compensation is very much in the mind of the farming community is that the Buckinghamshire proposal, affecting an unusual quantity of agricultural land, is under public discussion. We can all see that there will be similar proposals—indeed there are bound to be if the population goes on increasing as fast as we are told that it will.
These large new developments may strike where a few years ago it would have seemed fantastic to suggest that new towns would ever grow up; and they are bound to affect some tenants who until now have had little cause to fear dispossession or to concern themselves about: he compensation to which it would entitle them. While inter-departmental consultations always take place with a view to minimising loss of good agricultural land, we must face the fact that there will be development proposals which will cost us farming land. Compensation is, of course, payable already, and I will run briefly over the existing arrangements before speaking of the problem of improving them where land goes to development.
A private landlord always terminates a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. Public authorities, even those possessing compulsory powers, sometimes do the same. In these cases the tenant is entitled to compensation as is provided under that Act, for improvements and tenant right—with which we are not concerned today—and, under Section 34, for disturbance. This Section fixes the amount of compensation within, so to speak, a bracket—and my hon. Friend mentioned the bracket; it cannot be less than a year's rent nor more than two years' rent. Between these limits it is for the tenant to show that he should receive more than the minimum. This is one procedure.
There is an alternative, for authorities possessing compulsory powers. These authorities can and often do proceed by notice of entry. The tenant's claim for compensation is then made under legisla-

tion concerning compulsory acquisition. Compensation under this procedure includes loss of profit, for it amounts to the value of the tenant's unexpired legal interest, plus the loss or injury he may sustain, whether by severance or total loss of the holding. Under this procedure, if the term of his unexpired legal interest is short, the tenant will get correspondingly less for loss of profit, and this is a point that we have very much in mind.
In addition, there is the discretionary power, which my hon. Friend mentioned, which Section 22 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1963 gives, but only to authorities possessing compulsory powers. This permits them to compensate a displaced tenant for the loss which, in their opinion, he will sustain to his agricultural business. It is common ground that in some cases tenant farmers who have to give up land because of development suffer financial hardship, but this is not always so. For example, if a tenant so affected—and my hon. Friend mentioned this case—happens to be on the point of retiring anyhow from farming and if he gets compensation for disturbance "according to the book", then nobody would maintain that he suffers financial hardship. On the other hand, if a tenant is in his prime and his farming is satisfactory, we all know that he is very unlikely, because of the security of tenure provisions, to have to quit unless the land is taken for non-agricultural purposes.
It has been argued that such farmers, unless it was known that early development was likely, have an expectation of continuing on their holdings which is cut short by the notice to quit for development, which of course is not contestable. and that this loss of expectation is not adequately compensated by the provisions I have mentioned. Moreover, where the portion of his holding lost is large, such a tenant will have to find other land, or even another home, and there is no denying that this is becoming more difficult to do.
This, then, is the complicated problem for which we are urgently seeking a remedy. It might be easier if we could confine our efforts to cases where tenants are dispossessed because of public development. But I do not think this would be right. Tenants also suffer hardship if they lose


land because a private landlord gets permission to develop, and we would be reluctant to adopt a solution that did not place similar liabilities on public and private landlords. This is the answer to hon. Members who have suggested in the past that all would be well or much better if we simply made obligatory the discretionary power which authorities possessing compulsory powers have under the 1963 Act to compensate tenants for their loss.
A further complication arises from the fact that, as we all know, the gain to the owner is often greater where the development is for commercial purposes or for housing than if it consists of, say, a reservoir or road-widening scheme in a rural area. These are the kinds of difficulty that must be thrashed out between the Departments and other bodies concerned.
My hon. Friend would, naturally, have preferred to hear that we are ready to announce a solution. This is not so, however. Nothing effective can be done

without legislation. Moreover, a solution must be found which takes into account a number of interests, not exclusively agricultural. And, of course, the bodies representative of the agricultural landlords and tenants—C.L.A. in addition to the N.F.U. and so on—who are particularly concerned, are applying their minds to the problem.
Although my hon. Friend was anxious that I should try to explain the reasons for the delay in this matter, I emphasise again that this is a very difficult problem. I have tried to pinpoint the difficulties and the discussions that are taking place. These discussions have been going on for some time. We must take into account the views of all concerned, together with the suggestions made by my hon. Friend. I assure my hon. Friend that all concerned sincerely wish to settle this matter. We will press on with a sense of urgency.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Five o'clock a.m.